Risk of hospitalization among patients with epilepsy using long versus short half-life adjunctive antiepileptic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: While antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) remain the primary treatment for epilepsy, many patients continue to have seizures. Uncontrolled seizures may be related to AED half-life, since short half-life (SHL) AEDs require more frequent dosing compared with the simplified regimens of long half-life (LHL) AEDs. Long half-life AEDs may also improve seizure control by extending missed dose forgiveness periods. The value of LHL AEDs may be assessed as reduced healthcare utilization. The study's objective was to examine the impact of adding an LHL versus SHL adjunctive AED on the risk of hospitalizations in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using the Symphony Health Solution Patient Integrated Dataverse. Patients ≥12 years old with uncontrolled epilepsy (≥2 medical claims ≥30 days apart) were identified during a study period (8/1/2012-7/31/2017). Patients were selected if they were subsequently initiated an adjunctive AED (excluding modified release formulations), and the prescription date served as the index. Patients were stratified into two mutually exclusive cohorts based on the index AED half-life (≤20 versus >20 h). Poisson regressions with robust error variances were performed for the relative risks (RRs) of all-cause, epilepsy-related, and injury-related hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 4984 patients were identified (2705 in the LHL and 2279 in the SHL cohort). Compared with those in the SHL cohort, patients in the LHL cohort were significantly younger [mean (SD, years): 43.9 (18.5) versus 49.2 (17.2), p < 0.001] and were less comorbid [mean (SD) of Charlson comorbidity index: 1.2 (1.8) versus 1.8 (2.2), p < 0.001]. In the one-year postindex date, adjusting for group differences, the risks of both all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations were significantly lower in the LHL cohort than in the SHL cohort [all-cause: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.93), p = 0.0006; epilepsy-related: 0.83 (0.73-0.94), p = 0.0046].Injury-related hospitalizations did not differ between LHL and SHL cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients with uncontrolled epilepsy who were initiated on an adjunctive AED, the choice of an LHL versus SHL was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs for the first-line treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory autoimmune disorder of the central nervous system that primarily afflicts young adults. Approximately 400,000 people in the United States are affected by MS. Although several forms of MS exist, the most common course is known as relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), which affects about 85% of MS patients. This form of MS is characterized by relapses of neurologic symptoms followed by periods of recovery. Progression of disease can lead to increasingly severe disability. Since the introduction of immunomodulatory biologic agents, such as interferon betas and glatiramer acetate, treatment has helped to change the course of the disease. Under budgetary constraints, health services payers are challenged to differentiate the economic value of these agents for formulary selection and/or placement. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate the 2-year cost-effectiveness of 4 disease modifying drugs (DMDs) used as first-line treatment of RRMS: glatiramer acetate, interferon (IFN) Beta-1a IM injection, IFN Beta-1a SC injection, and IFN Beta-1b SC injection. METHODS: An Excel-based model was developed to compare the relative effectiveness and cost components of relapses, disability progression, and DMDs in the treatment of RRMS over a 2-year time horizon. The relative risk reduction (RRR) method was used to compare reduction in relapse rates and disease progression data from pivotal randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials of the DMDs. RRRs for relapses and disability progression, respectively, were calculated as the relative difference (treatment vs. placebo) in relapse rates and disease progression rates from placebo-controlled clinical trials. These RRRs were applied to the weighted average rates of relapse and number of disability progression steps seen in the placebo arms of the pivotal studies. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer (only direct medical costs considered). Medical savings were calculated as costs saved due to relapses avoided and prevention in disability progression steps. In the base case analysis, we assumed 89.4% persistence, a cost per relapse of $4,682, and a cost per disability progression step of $1,788. Monthly cost of therapy was defined as wholesale acquisition cost ($0 contractual discounts and $25 patient copayment assumed in the base case analysis) plus routine monitoring costs as assessed by an expert panel. The primary economic endpoint was cost per relapse avoided. Costs and outcomes occurring in the second year were discounted 3% to bring to 2008 present values. Oneway and multiway probabilistic (Monte Carlo) sensitivity analyses were conducted on key input variables to assess their impact on cost per relapse avoided. RESULTS: Without DMD treatment, patients were predicted to experience 2.55 relapses and 0.44 disability progression steps over a 2-year period (discounted values). The 2-year reductions in clinical relapses for treatment with glatiramer acetate, IFN Beta-1a IM injection, IFN Beta-1a SC injection, and IFN Beta-1b were 0.66, 0.42, 0.74, and 0.70, respectively. The 2-year reductions in disability progression steps for treatment with glatiramer acetate, IFN Beta-1a IM injection, IFN Beta-1a SC injection, and IFN Beta-1b were 0.05, 0.15, 0.12, and 0.11, respectively. In the base case analysis, IFN Beta-1a SC injection, IFN Beta-1b SC injection, and glatiramer acetate had the most favorable costs per relapse avoided ($80,589; $87,061; and $88,310; respectively) and IFN Beta-1a IM injection had the least favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($141,721 per relapse avoided). Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were robust to changes in key input parameters, such as the number of relapses and disease progression steps in untreated patients, the RRR in clinical relapse and progression rates, the rate of persistence, the average cost of relapse, and the average cost of a disease progression step. CONCLUSION: This evaluation suggests that IFN Beta-1a SC injection, IFN Beta-1b SC injection, and glatiramer acetate represent the most cost-effective DMDs for the treatment of RRMS, where cost-effectiveness is defined as cost per relapse avoided, assuming that (a) the RRR in relapses and disease progression steps calculated from multiple DMD placebo-controlled clinical trials reflect real differences among DMDs over 2 years; and (b) resource unit costs derived from published sources reflect economic consequences of relapses and disease progression.

Atypical presentations among Medicare beneficiaries with unstable angina pectoris.

Chest pain is a hallmark symptom in patients with unstable angina pectoris (UAP). However, little is known regarding the prevalence of an atypical presentation among these patients and its relation to subsequent care. We examined the medical records of 4,167 randomly sampled Medicare patients hospitalized with unstable angina at 22 Alabama hospitals between 1993 and 1999. We defined typical presentation as (1) chest pain located substernally in the left or right chest, or (2) chest pain characterized as squeezing, tightness, aching, crushing, arm discomfort, dullness, fullness, heaviness, pressure, or pain aggravated by exercise or relieved with rest or nitroglycerin. Atypical presentation was defined as confirmed UAP without typical presentation. Among patients with confirmed UAP, 51.7% had atypical presentations. The most frequent symptoms associated with atypical presentation were dyspnea (69.4%), nausea (37.7%), diaphoresis (25.2%), syncope (10.6%), or pain in the arms (11.5%), epigastrium (8.1%), shoulder (7.4%), or neck (5.9%). Independent predictors of atypical presentation for patients with UAP were older age (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.17/decade), history of dementia (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.03), and absence of prior myocardial infarction, hypercholesterolemia, or family history of heart disease. Patients with atypical presentation received aspirin, heparin, and beta-blocker therapy less aggressively, but there was no difference in mortality. Thus, over half of Medicare patients with confirmed UAP had "atypical" presentations. National educational initiatives may need to redefine the classic presentation of UAP to include atypical presentations to ensure appropriate quality of care.

Racial disparities in coronary heart disease: a sociological view of the medical literature on physician bias.

PURPOSE: To interpret, within a sociological context, evidence of physician bias in the management and outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) treatment for African Americans vs Whites. DATA IDENTIFICATION: Articles addressing race and ethnic disparities in CHD, and gender as an additional risk factor, published since 1980, were searched and reviewed. Source material was identified using the electronic search engines for MEDLINE and Sociological STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included in the review of race or ethnic disparities in heart disease when they provided direct or indirect evidence of potential sources of physician bias and/or differential treatment for CHD. Three types of studies suggest the presence of physician bias, and include those demonstrating: 1) patterned disparities in treatments and interventions; 2) practitioner perceptual bias/stereotyping of patients; and 3) patient perceptions of bias in treatment. RESULTS: A growing body of research supports the presence of physician bias in differential treatment practices for CHD based on patient race/ethnicity, and sometimes patient gender and socioeconomic status, which manifests as additional risk factors in the quality of care, pharmacological therapy, and use of invasive procedures. Access to care and patient preferences/behaviors do not fully account for racial disparities in CHD treatment. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomics, individual racism, and institutional racism represent 3 predominant pathways to differential treatment for CHD that are mediated by the patient-provider relationship. Racial biases are shown to be a part of the social structure of medical practices at both the macro and micro levels. Individual healthcare providers can potentially reduce disparities in Black-White CHD treatment and outcomes by examining the patient-provider relationship for bias. Future studies will require addressing more direct ways of measuring, monitoring, and reducing subtle bias in the healthcare system.