Oral Corticosteroid Treatment Patterns of Patients in the United States with Persistent Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with poor asthma control may receive oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy despite the risk for adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: We assessed OCS use frequency and treatment patterns in patients with persistent asthma in the United States (US). METHODS: We used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, Medicare Supplemental, and Medicaid Multistate Claims research databases to identify patients from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017, who were ≥12 years old, met the 2-year Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set criteria for persistent asthma, and were continuously enrolled ≥6 months before (baseline) and ≥24 months after (follow-up) the persistent asthma index date. Patients were classified as high OCS use (defined as ≥450 mg of OCS prescribed within a 90-day period during follow-up), low use (use OCS but not meeting high use criteria), or no OCS use. RESULTS: We identified 435,675 patients, of whom 65% used OCS and 19% were classified as high OCS users at some point during follow-up. The annual prevalence of high OCS use ranged from 5.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2017. During the entire follow-up, high and low OCS users filled an average of 2.2 and 0.8 OCS prescriptions and received an average daily dosage of 2.2 and 0.3 mg, respectively. Once the patients became high OCS users, the average daily OCS dosage was relatively stable (5.1-7.1 mg) over 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with persistent asthma in the US have substantial exposure to OCS. OCS therapy should be considered carefully to avoid associated adverse effects.

Healthcare resource utilization by patients with treatment-refractory myasthenia gravis in England.

Aims: To examine healthcare resource utilization associated with refractory myasthenia gravis (MG) in England. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the Hospital Episode Statistics database collected between 1997 and 2016. Included patients were ≥18 years of age at the index MG diagnosis. Patients with refractory MG were identified using an algorithm based on treatments received. Healthcare resource utilization since the index date was compared between refractory and non-refractory cohorts. Results: The study included 1149 patients with MG, of whom 66 (5.7%) were refractory. Sex and age at diagnosis did not significantly differ between the refractory and non-refractory cohorts. Rates of healthcare resource utilization per person-year were significantly higher (p < .05) for patients with refractory compared to non-refractory MG for GP visits, visits to other healthcare professionals, outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization. Patients in the refractory cohort spent more total days hospitalized since the index visit than patients in the non-refractory cohort (median, 33 vs. 16 days [p < .0001]). Limitations: The algorithm for identifying refractory patients did not include clinical criteria. Also, treatments administered in hospitals or by specialists were not available in the databases. Conclusions: Patients in England with refractory MG more often visit healthcare providers, are hospitalized and visit an emergency room than patients with non-refractory MG.

A retrospective study to assess resource utilization and costs in patients with post-stroke spasticity in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke spasticity (PSS) is a common complication following stroke. This study describes the differences in healthcare resource utilization between patients who do and do not develop PSS in the UK. METHODS: Adults registered in The Health Improvement Network database with a recorded stroke between 2007 and 2011 were included. PSS was identified through Read codes; machine learning was used to retrospectively identify unrecorded PSS events. Patients with diagnosed or predicted PSS in the 12 months after stroke were matched to those with no PSS on age, sex, number of strokes, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities using the nearest neighbor algorithm. Utilization and costs associated with general practitioner visits, nurse visits, hospitalizations, referrals to specialists, laboratory tests, and medications in the 12 months after stroke were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 2,951 PSS cases were matched to 37,753 controls. During the first year, more PSS cases visited a physiotherapist (19% vs 7%) and occupational therapist (12% vs 5%) compared to controls. A greater proportion of cases were also referred to specialists (76% vs 64%) and hospitalized (33% vs 9%) compared to controls. Medication for spasticity was, on average, 14.68 prescriptions for cases and 5.64 for controls. Total mean costs per patient were £1,270 (standard deviation [SD] = 772) and £635 (SD = 273) for cases and controls, respectively. CONCLUSION: Costs after stroke for patients developing PSS are twice as high compared to patients who do not develop it, with the major driver being the number of hospital admissions. This highlights the need for better recording and closer management of PSS.