Patients with allergic asthma have lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than patients with nonallergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although asthma does not appear to be a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), outcomes could vary for patients with different asthma subtypes. The objective of this analysis was to compare COVID-19 outcomes in real-world cohorts in the United States among patients with asthma, with or without evidence of allergy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of the COVID-19 Optum electronic health record dataset (February 20, 2020-January 28, 2021), patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with a history of moderate-to-severe asthma were divided into 2 cohorts: those with evidence of allergic asthma and those without (nonallergic asthma). After 1:1 propensity score matching, in which covariates were balanced and potential bias was removed, COVID-19 outcomes were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: From a COVID-19 population of 591,198 patients, 1595 patients with allergic asthma and 8204 patients with nonallergic asthma were identified. After propensity score matching (n = 1578 per cohort), risk of death from any cause after COVID-19 diagnosis was significantly lower for patients with allergic vs nonallergic asthma (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI 0.28-0.83; P = 0.0087), and a smaller proportion of patients with allergic vs nonallergic asthma was hospitalized within - 7 to + 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis (13.8% [n = 217] vs 18.3% [n = 289]; P = 0.0005). Among hospitalized patients, there were no significant differences between patients with allergic or nonallergic asthma in need for intensive care unit admission, respiratory support, or COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma subtype may influence outcomes after COVID-19; patients with allergic asthma are at lower risk for hospitalization/death than those with nonallergic asthma.

Diabetic Population-Based Model to Estimate Impact of Ranibizumab on Diabetic Retinopathy Severity in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: Estimate effects of ranibizumab on diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in US Hispanic and non-Hispanic white persons with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) causing vision impairment for whom ranibizumab treatment would be considered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This model simulated DR severity outcomes over 2 years in the better-seeing eye using US census, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy, and Los Angeles Latino Eye Study data. Baseline DR severity estimated from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network trial data. Changes in DR severity after 2 years, with/without monthly ranibizumab (0.3 or 0.5 mg), were estimated from Phase III clinical trial data (RIDE/RISE) using a 2-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation model. Number of patients over a 2-year period for whom 1) DR severity worsening was avoided, 2) DR severity improved, and 3) selected clinical events related to proliferative DR (PDR) occurred, was estimated. RESULTS: An estimated 37,274 US Hispanic and non-Hispanic white persons were projected to have DR with center-involved DME and be eligible for ranibizumab treatment. The number of persons with moderately severe non-proliferative DR (NPDR) or less severe DR at baseline who would worsen to PDR and experience a PDR complication over 2 years would be reduced from 437 with no ranibizumab to 19 with ranibizumab (95% reduction; 95% simulation interval [SI], 79-100%). The number of persons with severe NPDR or less severe DR at baseline who would be expected to improve by ≥2 DR severity levels over 2 years would increase from 1706 with no ranibizumab to 13,042 with ranibizumab (682% increase; 95% SI, 478-967%). CONCLUSION: This model estimates that ranibizumab treatment in US Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients with center-involved DME causing vision impairment would potentially reduce the number of patients with worsening DR and potentially increase the number with DR improvements.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data.

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10 years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0 mg or ranibizumab 0.3 mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10 years.Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled allergic asthma in the United States.

Objective: Uncontrolled asthma is associated with considerable clinical burden and costs to payers and patients. US economic models evaluating biologics using data from clinical trials demonstrate high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), but the cost-effectiveness based on real-world treatment patterns is unknown. This analysis used real-world evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding omalizumab to standard of care (SOC).Methods: A Markov model was applied to track patients' health states in 2-week cycles, comparing costs and treatment effects of SOC alone versus SOC + omalizumab over a lifetime (US payer perspective). Outcomes included exacerbation events, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and an ICER. Patient characteristics, exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes, and work productivity were derived from the real-world PROSPERO (Prospective Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab) study. Published literature informed mortality, exacerbation-related disutility, and unit costs. Sensitivity analyses assessed model robustness.Results: Over a lifetime horizon, omalizumab was associated with an increase of 2.0 QALYs at a cost of $US 148,319 in patients with uncontrolled asthma (ICER of $75,319/QALY gained) and a reduction in exacerbations of 6.0 events/patient. Accounting for responder status improved the ICER ($70,505/QALY); incorporating indirect costs further reduced the ICER. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base case outcome was robust to variation in inputs.Conclusions: Based on real-world outcomes, omalizumab may be cost-effective for uncontrolled asthma from the US payer perspective. Including broader evidence on treatment discontinuation, caregiver burden, and oral corticosteroid reduction from real-world studies may better reflect the effects and value of omalizumab for all healthcare stakeholders.

Validity and responsiveness of the Urticaria Activity and Impact Measure: A new patient-reported tool.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), also known as chronic idiopathic urticaria, may produce hives, itch, and angioedema. The Urticaria Activity and Impact Measure (U-AIM) is a newly developed 9-item patient-reported measure designed for use in routine clinical practice to assess CSU activity and impact during the previous 7 days. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate validity, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change of the U-AIM. METHODS: Data from a 24-week, open-label, single-arm period of a randomized, placebo-controlled study of omalizumab were used to assess the psychometric properties of U-AIM items for itch, hives, and angioedema. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients (75% female; mean age, 44.6 years) were enrolled. At baseline, U-AIM results included prevalent severe itch (55%) and more than 12 hives (67%), angioedema (15%), and bother by itch (84%), hives (84%), and angioedema (49%). The Urticaria Patient Daily Diary (UPDD) mean weekly scores were 15.4 (itch severity), 16.8 (number of hives), and 32.2 (Urticaria Activity Score [UAS7]). At baseline, week 12, and week 24, U-AIM itch and hives items and UAS7 proxy scores (the sum of itch severity and number of hives during 7 days) demonstrated strong correlation coefficients with their corresponding measures from the UPDD (itch severity: 0.634-0.806; hives number: 0.735-0.843; UAS7 proxy: 0.724-0.852). Changes in U-AIM scores differentiated patients by their perspective of symptom improvement. Meaningful change thresholds were established for itch severity and number of hives scores (range, 0.8-1.0 for both) and the UAS7 proxy score (range, 10.5-12.5). CONCLUSION: The U-AIM is valid and responsive to change and may help clinicians monitor CSU activity and track treatment effectiveness.

Adherence to the American Diabetes Association retinal screening guidelines for population with diabetes in the United States.

PURPOSE: (1) To assess long-term adherence to American Diabetes Association guideline-recommended retinal screening among population with diabetes in the United States. (2) To determine factors associated with long-term adherence to routine eye screening exams. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with diabetes identified from January 2009 to December 2010. Patients were followed until disenrollment, death, or study end date (December 2013). A patient was defined as adherent when having at least one exam in each 12-month period if there was evidence of retinopathy, or at least one exam in each 24-month period if there was no evidence of retinopathy. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to investigate patient demographics and other baseline characteristics associated with adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 204,073 patients were identified; the mean age (SD) was 61 (13) years and 48% were female. Overall, 71.1% were adherent to the retinal screening guidelines during a median of 4.8 years of follow-up including 27.7% who received an eye exam every year. Patient socioeconomic status (younger age, black race, lower income/education), less comorbidity, insulin use, higher specialist copayment plans, and proxies for poor patient behavior (lower adherence to the oral hypoglycemic agents, less diabetes education, hemoglobin A1C >9%) were associated with nonadherence to routine eye screening exams. CONCLUSION: During nearly 5 years of follow-up, 28.9% of patients with diabetes were nonadherent to the retinal screening guidelines. Future research should focus on the development of interventions to address modifiable factors associated with nonadherence.

The comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for neovascular macular degeneration revisited.

BACKGROUND: To compare a near decade of follow-up, newer control cohort data, use of both the societal and third party insurer cost perspectives, and integration of unilateral/bilateral therapy on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular, age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Value-Based Medicine®, 12-year, combined-eye model, cost-utility analysis employing MARINA and HORIZON clinical trial data. Preference-based comparative effectiveness outcomes were quantified in (1) QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gain, and (2) percent improvement in quality-of-life, while cost-effectiveness outcomes were quantified in (3) the cost-utility ratio (CUR) and financial return-on-investment (ROI) to society. RESULTS: Using MARINA and HORIZON trial data and a meta-analysis control cohort after 24 months, ranibizumab therapy conferred a combined-eye patient value (quality-of-life) gain of 16.3%, versus 10.4% found in 2006. The two-year direct ophthalmic medical cost for ranibizumab therapy was $46,450, a 33.8% real dollar decrease from 2006. The societal cost perspective CUR was -$242,920/QALY, indicating a $282,517 financial return-on-investment (ROI), or 12.3%/year to society for direct ophthalmic medical costs expended. The 3rd party insurer CUR ranged from $21,199/QALY utilizing all direct, medical costs, to $69,591/QALY using direct ophthalmic medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab therapy for neovascular AMD in 2015, considering treatment of both eyes, conferred greater patient value gain (comparative effectiveness) and improved cost-effectiveness than in 2006, as well as a large monetary return-on-investment to the Gross Domestic Product and nation's wealth. The model herein integrates important novel features for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, vitreoretinal cost effectiveness analyses, including: (1) treatment of both eyes, (2) a long-term, untreated control cohort, and (3) the use of societal costs.

The Burden of Retinal Venous Occlusion: An Assessment of Fellow Eyes in 1000 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To assess retinal vein occlusion (RVO) clinical features to create a simulation model quantifying the preference-based, patient value gain (benefit) and cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) of RVO therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis data integrated with patient utilities and an ocular cost-utility model for RVO. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand consecutive Wills Eye Hospital Retina Service RVO patients seen from January 2010 through April 2011. METHODS: Value-Based Medicine analysis assessing the demographic features and vision in affected eyes and fellow eyes of RVO patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presenting vision, final vision, conversion incidence of fellow eyes to RVO, and patient value gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Among 1000 patients, 332 (33.2%) presented with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), 53 (5.3%) with hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO), and 615 (61.5%) with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Mean follow-up for the entire RVO cohort was 3 years. One hundred and one patients (10.1%) had bilateral baseline RVO and, among the 826 unilateral cases seen more than once, 37 (4.5%) developed a fellow-eye RVO, a unilateral-to-bilateral conversion rate of 1.5%/year. Among the 101 baseline bilateral cases, 66% (66/101) had the same RVO variant bilaterally (CRVO/CRVO, HRVO/HRVO, or BRVO/BRVO). Mean CRVO baseline vision was 20/63-2 and final vision was 20/63-1 (P = 0.16). Thirty percent of patients had less than or equal to baseline fellow-eye vision. Within combined HRVO/BRVO cohorts, mean baseline vision was 20/50-2 and final vision was 20/50+1 (P = 0.0004). Thirty percent of patients also had less than or equal to baseline fellow-eye vision. The proportion of RVO patients with fellow-eye vision less than or equal to the RVO primary-eye baseline vision increased to 44% by year 16. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty percent of all RVO patients had less than or equal to baseline vision in the fellow eye. Among unilateral RVO cases, 1.5%/year developed fellow-eye RVO. These findings have implications for cost-utility analysis, because bilateral vision loss yields greater QALY loss and an increased financial burden compared with unilateral loss. Referent to total therapeutic QALY gain (100%), if a treated RVO was always considered the better-seeing eye, the actual clinical scenario demonstrates that the average CRVO patient gains 38% as much value and the average HRVO/BRVO patient gains 37% as much.

Evaluating Adherence to Dilated Eye Examination Recommendations Among Patients with Diabetes, Combined with Patient and Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus remains the leading cause of new cases of blindness among US adults. Routine dilated eye examinations can facilitate early detection and intervention for diabetes-related eye disease, providing an opportunity to reduce the risk for diabetes-related blindness in working-aged Americans. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) established criteria for performing dilated eye examination in patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To obtain information about adherence and nonadherence to diabetic eye examinations among insured patients to understand the barriers to routine dilated eye examinations, and to identify ways to improve the quality of care for these patients. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis is based on administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, a broad database representing claims from a large commercially insured population. Patients with diabetes and who had ≥1 dilated eye examinations between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2013, were defined as adherent to the HEDIS recommendations. The analysis was augmented with findings from focus groups. The patient focus groups included adherent and nonadherent patients. The provider focus group participants were general practice or internal medicine physicians and ophthalmologists who provided medical care for the study population. For the administrative claims analysis, comparisons between the adherent and nonadherent patients were performed using t-tests for continuous data and chi-square tests for categorical data. RESULTS: Of 339,646 patients with diabetes identified in a claims data set, 43% were adherent and 57% were nonadherent to the HEDIS eye examination performance measure. The common barriers to routine eye examination cited by 29 patients across 4 focus groups included a lack of understanding of insurance benefits (N = 15), a lack of awareness of the importance of dilated eye examinations (N = 12), and time constraints (N = 12). The common barriers cited by 18 providers included the patient's level of education (N = 13), eye examinations as a lower priority than the management of other diabetes-related health issues (N = 12), and a lack of symptoms (N = 11). CONCLUSION: Several reasons for patient nonadherence to routine eye examination were identified, including a lack of understanding of insurance benefits, a lack of awareness or low prioritization of having an examination, patient education level, time constraints, and a lack of symptoms. These may be considered by providers and payers when developing programs to increase the rates of eye examinations and improve outcomes among patients with diabetes.

Longitudinal Commercial Claims-Based Cost Analysis of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes. The screening of patients with diabetes to detect retinopathy is recommended by several professional guidelines but is an underutilized service. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the frequency of retinopathy screening and the cost of care in adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan commercial databases (2000-2013) were used to identify the diabetic population aged 18 to 64 years for the performance of a 2001-2013 annual trend analysis of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a 10-year longitudinal analysis of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. In the trend analysis, the prevalence of diabetes, screening rate, and allowed cost per member per month (PMPM) were calculated. In the longitudinal analysis, data from 4 index years (2001-2004) of patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were combined, and the costs were adjusted to be comparable to the 2004 index year cohort, using the annual diabetes population cost trends calculated in the trend analysis. The longitudinal population was segmented into the number of years of diabetic retinopathy screening (ie, 0, 1-4, 5-7, and 8-10), and the relationship between the years of screening and the PMPM allowed costs was analyzed. The difference in mean incremental cost between years 1 and 10 in each of the 4 cohorts was compared after adjusting for explanatory variables. RESULTS: In the trend analysis, between 2001 and 2013, the prevalence of diabetes increased from 3.93% to 5.08%, retinal screening increased from 26.27% to 29.58%, and the average total unadjusted allowed cost of care for each patient with diabetes increased from $822 to $1395 PMPM. In the longitudinal analysis, the difference between the screening cohorts' mean incremental cost increase was $185 between the 0- and 1-4-year cohorts (P <.003) and $202 between the 0- and 5-7-year cohorts (P <.023). The cost differences between the other cohorts, including $217 between the 0- and 8-10-year cohorts (P <.066), were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, the annual retinopathy screening rate for patients with diabetes has remained low since 2001, and has been well below the guideline-recommended screening levels. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean increase in healthcare expenditures over a 10-year period after diagnosis is not statistically different among those with various retinopathy screening rates, although the increase in healthcare spending is lower for patients with diabetes who were not screened for retinopathy compared with patients who did get screened.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To assess the incremental, comparative effectiveness (patient value gain) and cost effectiveness (financial value gain) associated with 0.3-mg intravitreal ranibizumab injection therapy versus sham therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Value-Based Medicine (Center for Value-Based Medicine, Flourtown, PA) 14-year, cost-utility analysis using patient preferences and 2012 United States real dollars. PARTICIPANTS: Published data from the identical Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects with Clinically Significant Macular Edema with Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus (RISE and RIDE) clinical trials. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis was performed using societal and third-party insurer cost perspectives. Costs and outcomes were discounted with net present value analysis at 3% per annum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incremental comparative effectiveness was measured in: (1) quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain and (2) percent patient value (quality-of-life) gain. Cost effectiveness was quantified with the cost-utility ratio (CUR) measured as $/QALY. RESULTS: The 14-year, incremental patient value gain conferred by intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for diabetic maculopathy was 0.9981 QALY, equating to an 11.6% improvement in quality of life. The direct, ophthalmic medical cost for ranibizumab therapy in 1 eye was $30 116, whereas for 2 eyes it was $56 336. The direct, nonophthalmic, medical costs saved from decreased depression, injury, skilled nursing facility admissions, nursing home admissions, and other vision-associated costs totaled $51 758, resulting in an overall direct medical cost of $4578. The net mean societal cost for bilateral ranibizumab therapy was -$30 807. Of this total, decreased caregiver costs accrued a $31 406 savings against the direct medical costs, whereas decreased wage losses accrued a $3978 savings. The third-party insurer CUR for bilateral ranibizumab therapy was $4587/QALY. The societal cost perspective for bilateral therapy was -$30 807/QALY, indicating that ranibizumab therapy dominated sham therapy because it conferred both a positive QALY gain of 0.9981 and a financial value gain (positive financial return on investment) of $30 807 referent to the direct ophthalmic medical costs expended. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for the treatment of DME confers considerable patient (human) value gain. It also accrues financial value to patients, public and private insurers, and society.

A literature review of complementary and alternative medicine use by colorectal cancer patients.

UNLABELLED: This paper sought to review the literature on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed and Embase was conducted to identify the relevant literature. Study investigators reviewed the titles of identified articles and one abstracted data from the eligible studies. Of the 39 English and French citations screened, 4 observational studies were included. RESULTS: Up to 75% of CRC patients reported using at least one CAM. The bio-based and mind-body therapies were the most commonly used. Nearly half of the studies showed that patients used CAM to improve general health and well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Future research may focus on how CAM use affects quality of life over time and in relation to changing health states, cancer stage and treatment to enable health care professionals to better inform CRC patients of the CAMs that may be helpful at particular points during the disease and treatment trajectories.