Migraine Prophylaxis and Acute Treatment Patterns Among Commercially Insured Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To describe prophylactic and acute medication treatment patterns, including timing, medication type, and duration of use in migraine patients initiating prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine can be treated with acute and prophylactic therapies. Current treatment options for migraine prophylaxis are associated with poor tolerability and low adherence and persistence. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Research Databases to identify adults in the United States with a migraine diagnosis who initiated migraine prophylactic medication (index event) between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011. Prescribed prophylactic medications evaluated included topiramate, beta-blockers, and tricyclic antidepressants. Patients were required to have 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment. Patient characteristics, migraine-specific prescribed prophylactic treatment patterns (including gaps in therapy, treatment switches, and additions of index medications), and prescribed acute medication utilization were assessed. RESULTS: The study population comprised 107,122 patients, with 52,275 (49%) initiating topiramate, 22,658 (21%) initiating beta-blockers, and 32,189 (30%) initiating tricyclic antidepressants. Mean (SD) age was 41 (12) years and 83% were female. Persistence with migraine prophylactic medication was low; 81% of patients had gaps of >90 days in their migraine prophylaxis in the first year. The gap in therapy occurred early in treatment (mean, 95 days), and only 10% of patients restarted prophylactic therapy within that year. Switching from index medication to another prophylactic medication or adding prophylaxis was uncommon (13% and 5%, respectively). One year after initiating prophylaxis, 65% of patients were not receiving any prophylactic therapies. Most patients initiating migraine prophylaxis also utilized acute treatments (81%); opioid use was more frequent than triptan use (53% vs 48%) and was common (40%) among patients without other chronic pain conditions (eg, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and lower back pain). CONCLUSION: Patients with migraine who initiated prophylactic therapy had poor persistence with early gaps in therapy, were unlikely to switch prophylactic treatments, and most discontinued prophylaxis by the end of the first year.

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe asthma: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: There are limited pediatric data about the use of omalizumab, especially the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in the real-world management of allergic asthma. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to summarize the safety and efficacy of omalizumab in both randomized clinical trials (RCT) used for U.S. Food and Drug Administration registration and real-world studies (RWS) based on clinical care of children with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: Studies that evaluated omalizumab use in patients <18 years old and with asthma, published between January 2003 and October 2016, were retrieved from medical literature data bases. Assessed outcomes included the following: exacerbation rates, spirometric indices, changes in asthma medication use, asthma control, patient-reported outcomes, and health care resource utilization. RESULTS: A total of five RWS were identified; outcomes reported were compared with three omalizumab RCTs. Overall, the mean rate of annual exacerbations was significantly lower after 6 months to 2 years of treatment with omalizumab in both RCTs and RWS. In two RCTs and three RWS, inhaled corticosteroid use was significantly reduced in patients who used omalizumab. Similar reductions in the use of rescue medication were also observed in the RCTs and RWS on omalizumab. Real-world evidence demonstrated improvement in forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (% predicted) in patients treated with omalizumab as well as significant improvement in the level of asthma control observed over 1 year. There also was evidence that omalizumab treatment reduced health care resource utilization, including fewer hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and unscheduled medical visits. Safety outcomes in all five RWS showed no new safety signals and demonstrated that omalizumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Overall, RCT evidence strongly supported omalizumab efficacy and safety as add-on treatment in children 6 to 11 years old with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma. RWS data confirmed these findings in an extended patient population of children and adolescents that is more generalizable to the actual day-to-day management of these patients.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery Treated With Intravenous Acetaminophen (IV-APAP) Plus Other IV Analgesics or IV Opioid Monotherapy for Postoperative Pain.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the impact on hospitalization costs of multimodal analgesia (MMA), including intravenous acetaminophen (IV-APAP), versus IV opioid monotherapy for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Utilizing the Truven Health MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database (HDD), patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or surgical repair of hip fracture between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2014 were separated into postoperative pain management groups: MMA with IV-APAP plus other IV analgesics (IV-APAP group) or an IV opioid monotherapy group. All patients could have received oral analgesics. Baseline characteristics and total hospitalization costs were compared. Additionally, an inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] with propensity scores analysis further assessed hospitalization cost differences. RESULTS: The IV-APAP group (n = 33,954) and IV opioid monotherapy group (n = 110,300) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) across baseline characteristics, though the differences may not have been clinically meaningful. Total hospitalization costs (mean ± standard deviation) were significantly lower for the IV-APAP group than the IV opioid monotherapy group (US$12,540 ± $9564 vs. $13,242 ± $35,825; P < 0.0001). Medical costs accounted for $701 of the $702 between-group difference. Pharmacy costs were similar between groups. Results of the IPTW-adjusted analysis further supported the statistically significant cost difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery who received MMA for postoperative pain management, including IV-APAP, had significantly lower total costs than patients who received IV opioid monotherapy. This difference was driven by medical costs; importantly, there was no difference in pharmacy costs. Generalizability of the results may be limited to patients admitted to hospitals similar to those included in HDD. Dosing could not be determined, so it was not possible to quantify utilization of IV-APAP or ascertain differences in opioid consumption between the 2 groups. This study did not account for healthcare utilization post-discharge.

Incidence and prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D): a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise incidence and prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) for the overall patient population and different subgroups (age, sex, geographical region, ethnicity and type of insulin administration). DESIGN: Systematic literature review (SLR). DATA SOURCES: Medline (via PubMed) and Embase (1 January 2000 to 23 June 2016). STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed observational studies with reported data on the incidence or prevalence of DKA in T1D adults were included. A single reviewer completed the study screening and selection process and a second reviewer performed an additional screening of approximately 20% of the publications; two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment; the results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Out of 1082 articles, 19 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with two additional studies identified that did not specify the patient age range and are therefore not included in the SLR. Overall, eight studies reported incidence with a range of 0-56 per 1000 person-years (PYs), with one outlying study reporting an incidence of 263 per 1000 PYs. Eleven studies reported prevalence with a range of 0-128 per 1000 people. Prevalence of DKA decreased with increasing age. Subgroup analyses were performed using data from no more than two studies per subgroup. There was a higher prevalence of DKA reported in women, non-whites and patients treated with insulin injections compared with men, whites and patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first SLR on the epidemiology of DKA in T1D adults. Despite an increasing prevalence of T1D in recent years, DKA in adults has been poorly characterised. In an era when the benefit-risk profiles of new antidiabetic therapies are being evaluated, including the potential risk of DKA, there is a clear need to better elucidate the expected rate of DKA among T1D adults.

Evidence-to-policy gap on hepatitis A vaccine adoption in 6 countries: Literature vs. policymakers' beliefs.

BACKGROUND: National vaccine adoption decisions may be better understood by linking multiple data sources. When examining countries' decisions to adopt the hepatitis A vaccine, applying multiple research methods can facilitate assessments of gaps between evidence and policy. We conducted a literature review on hepatitis A and stakeholder interviews about decisions to adopt the vaccine in six countries (Chile, India, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted across five literature databases. The review identified and abstracted 340 articles, supplemented by internet search. In addition, we interviewed 62 experts and opinion leaders on hepatitis A and/or vaccines. Data from the two sources were analyzed to identify gaps around epidemiologic data, economic data, and barriers/facilitators of hepatitis A vaccine adoption. RESULTS: Epidemiologic data gaps were found in Chile and Russia, where stakeholders believed data to be more solid than the literature documented. Economic data on hepatitis A was found to be weak across all countries despite stakeholders' agreement on its importance. Barriers and facilitators of vaccine adoption such as political will, prioritization among vaccines, and global or local recommendations were discussed more by stakeholders than the literature. Stakeholders in India and Mexico were not concerned with the lack of data, despite growing recognition in the literature of the epidemiological transition and threat of outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: Triangulation of results from two methods captured a richer story behind vaccine adoption decisions for hepatitis A. The discrepancy between policymakers' beliefs and existing data suggest a decline in priority of hepatitis A or weak investment in data collection. Filling the confirmed data gaps in seroprevalence or economic data is important to help guide policy decisions. Greater communication of the risk of hepatitis A and the benefits of the vaccine may help countries undergoing the epidemiologic transition.

A brief review of vaccination coverage in immunization registries.

Immunization registries are effective electronic tools for assessing vaccination coverage, but are only as good as the information reported to them. This review summarizes studies through August 2010 on vaccination coverage in registries and identifies key characteristics of successful registries. Based on the current state of registries, paper-based charts combined with electronic registry reporting provide the most cohesive picture of coverage. To ultimately supplant paper charts, registries must exhibit increased coverage and participation.