A retrospective chart review study to quantify the monthly medical resource use and costs of treating patients with treatment resistant depression in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a globally prevalent chronic psychiatric illness with a significant disease impact. As many as 30% of patients with MDD do not adequately respond to two therapies and are considered to be treatment resistant. This study aimed to quantify healthcare costs associated with treatment resistant depression (TRD) in the UK. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with TRD was conducted in primary and secondary care settings over a 2 year period. Data abstracted from medical records of patients included demographics, clinical characteristics and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; number of consultations, use of Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Teams [CRHTTs], non-drug and drug interventions, and hospitalizations). HCRU per patient per month (28 days) was calculated for three health states: major depressive episode (MDE), remission and recovery. Unit costs were from the British National Formulary (BNF) and the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU). RESULTS: A total of 295 patients with TRD were recruited between January 2016 and May 2018. The mean age of the total sample was 43.3 years; 60.3% were female. Costs per patient, per 28 days, were highest in the MDE state, with the average cost (£992) mainly driven by consultations, non-drug treatment, hospitalizations and CRHTT, with a considerable fall in costs as patients moved into remission and subsequent recovery. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that antidepressant treatments for TRD that are more effective in reducing the time spent in an MDE health state, and helping patients achieve remission and recovery, are essential for reducing the overall HCRU and costs in patients with TRD. Cost of TRD in the UK Strengths and limitations of this study This observational study of TRD is the first to assess the HCRU impact associated with different predefined health states. Using retrospective data from both primary and secondary care physicians from regions across the UK ensures a representative real-world patient population. One limitation is that the selection of patients is based on criteria that define TRD that rely on physician judgement. Although the study captures direct HCRU costs, the indirect costs of lost productivity and care are not included in the overall burden. This study has defined the current clinical management of patients with TRD in the UK and provides an estimate of the associated HCRU and associated costs.

Living with Ulcerative Colitis Study (LUCY) in England: a retrospective study evaluating healthcare resource utilisation and direct healthcare costs of postoperative care in ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a lifelong, relapsing-remitting disease. Patients non-responsive to pharmacological treatment may require a colectomy. We estimated pre-colectomy and post-colectomy healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs in England. DESIGN/METHOD: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study indexing adult patients with UC undergoing colectomy (2009-2015), using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink/Hospital Episode Statistics data, was conducted. HCRU, healthcare costs and pharmacological treatments were evaluated during 12 months prior to and including colectomy (baseline) and 24 months post-colectomy (follow-up; F-U), comparing baseline/F-U, emergency/elective colectomy and subtotal/full colectomy using descriptive statistics and paired/unpaired tests. RESULTS: 249 patients from 26 165 identified were analysed including 145 (58%) elective and 184 (74%) full colectomies. Number/cost of general practitioner consultations increased post-colectomy (p<0.001), and then decreased at 13-24 months (p<0.05). From baseline to F-U, the number of outpatient visits, number/cost of hospitalisations and total direct healthcare costs decreased (all p<0.01). Postoperative HCRU was similar between elective and emergency colectomies, except for the costs of colectomy-related hospitalisations and medication, which were lower in the elective group (p<0.05). Postoperative costs were higher for subtotal versus full colectomies (p<0.001). At 1-12 month F-U, 30%, 19% and 5% of patients received aminosalicylates, steroids and immunosuppressants, respectively. CONCLUSION: HCRU/costs increased for primary care in the first year post-colectomy but decreased for secondary care, and varied according to the colectomy type. Ongoing and potentially unnecessary pharmacological therapy was seen in up to 30% of patients. These findings can inform patients and decision-makers of potential benefits and burdens of colectomy in UC.

Living with ulcerative colitis in Germany: a retrospective analysis of dose escalation, concomitant treatment use and healthcare costs.

Aims: To investigate treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) using real-world German health insurance claims data.Materials and methods: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted from a German statutory health insurance database for adult patients with UC indexed on biologic therapy initiation (2013-2015). Anonymized data were evaluated for 12 months prior to (baseline) through 24 months after (follow-up) indexing. Biologic dose escalations, steroid and immunosuppressant use, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs were evaluated, with significant differences assessed across and between index biologics. Descriptive statistics, chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, and analysis of variance were performed.Results: The analysis included 304 patients (adalimumab, n = 125; golimumab, n = 47; infliximab, n = 114; vedolizumab, n = 18). Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across biologics. Dose escalations occurred in 58% of patients (73% of patients receiving adalimumab), with 41% receiving subsequent de-escalation. Steroids were used during follow-up by 74% of patients; 25% received steroids >14 weeks after indexing. Overall, 41% of patients received an immunosuppressant during follow-up. Steroid and immunosuppressant use were similar across biologics. Total direct healthcare costs were higher during follow-up than baseline and differed significantly across treatments (p < .05), with highest costs for golimumab. Biologic costs contributed to a major portion of follow-up costs. HCRU and costs for most resources were higher in the first 12-month follow-up period than baseline. All resource use except gastroenterology visits returned to, or below, baseline levels 13-24 months post-index date.Limitations: There was potential for inappropriate inclusion/exclusion due to miscoding. Patients may have received biologics >12 months prior to the index date. Biologic originators and biosimilars could not be differentiated.Conclusions: These data suggest that control with current biologics is suboptimal. Further treatment options that provide sustained steroid-free remission for this patient population without the need for dose escalations or concomitant therapies may be warranted.

The impact of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) on patient quality of life and productivity: results from the international MPN Landmark survey.

Myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) associated with high disease burden, reduced quality of life (QOL), and shortened survival. To assess how MPNs affect patients, we conducted a global MPN Landmark survey. This online survey of patients with MPNs and physicians was conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The survey measured MPN-related symptoms and the impact of MPNs on QOL and the ability to work as well as disease-management strategies. Overall, 219 physicians and 699 patients (MF, n = 174; PV, n = 223; ET, n = 302) completed the survey; 90% of patients experienced MPN-related symptoms. The most frequent and severe symptom was fatigue. Most patients experienced a reduction in QOL, including those with low symptom burden or low-risk scores. A substantial proportion of patients reported impairment at work and in overall activity. Interestingly, physician feedback and blood counts were the most important indicators of treatment success among patients, with improvements in symptoms and QOL being less important. Regarding disease management, our study revealed a lack of alignment between physician and patient perceptions relating to communication and disease management, with patients often having different treatment goals than physicians. Overall, our study suggested that therapies that reduce symptom burden and improve QOL in patients with MPNs are crucial in minimizing disease impact on patient daily lives. Additionally, our findings showed a need for improved patient-physician communication, standardized monitoring of symptoms, and agreement on treatment goals.

Assessing gastroenterologist and patient acceptance of biosimilars in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease across Germany.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined gastroenterologists' motivation for prescribing biosimilars, assessed their treatment preferences in relation to prescribing behaviour, and explored patient attitudes to biosimilars. METHODS: Data were taken from the Adelphi Real World Biosimilars Programme, a real-world, cross-sectional study undertaken in 2015-2016 with German gastroenterologists and patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. Gastroenterologists provided data on their prescribing behaviour and attitudes towards biosimilars, and invited the next eight eligible consecutive consulting patients to complete a detailed questionnaire. For analysis, gastroenterologists were split into 'Investigative', 'Conservative', and 'Other' groups. RESULTS: Overall, 25 gastroenterologists and 136 patients participated. Biosimilars accounted for <15% of all biologic therapies and >80% of gastroenterologists would prescribe a bio-originator rather than biosimilar as 1st line therapy if unrestricted. Patients showed some reluctance to accept biosimilars, although of those receiving biosimilars, 79% were satisfied with the current treatment of their condition, and 69% were satisfied with the control of symptoms. Although at least 35% of patients in each analysis group reported no concerns when starting treatment with a bio-originator or biosimilar, 41% of previously biologic-naïve patients prescribed a biosimilar indicated potential side effects and potential long-term problems, and 24% not knowing enough about the drug, as concerns. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that there is reluctance from patients to accept biosimilars and the need to further educate patients who are unsure to allow them to be involved in decision making, highlighting the importance of patient and physician communication. There remains a need for further research into non-clinical switching and the long term impact of prescribing biosimilars.

A breast cancer education and on-site screening intervention for unscreened African American women.

BACKGROUND: This study tested a breast cancer education intervention for African American women with poor screening histories. Disparities in rates of later-stage disease and death may be related to lower screening rates due to behavioral (e.g., knowledge gap) and structural (e.g., access) barriers. METHODS: 94 African American women (low-income, poor screening histories) were randomly assigned for an educational and on-site screening intervention, or non-intervention status. Primary care sites were used for educational purposes. Three-month post-intervention mammography was assessed. RESULTS: The intervention group had significantly higher screening rates than the non-intervention group. The latter had a knowledge gap, poor screening history, cancer fears, and insurance differences relative to the screened women. Screening was predicted by behavioral, rather than structural factors. CONCLUSIONS: Since low-income African American women face behavioral and structural barriers to breast cancer screening, an educational program that improves knowledge levels and is offered in primary care sites can effectively impact screening.