Real-World Evaluation of Clinical Response and Long-Term Healthcare Resource Utilization Patterns Following Treatment with a Digital Therapeutic for Chronic Insomnia.

Background and Objectives: This analysis evaluated insomnia severity and long-term impact on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs after treatment with Somryst® (previously called SHUTi), a digital therapeutic delivering cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Methods: Change from baseline in insomnia severity index (ISI) score was assessed using last observed ISI score. A pre/post analysis of claims data was conducted, comparing HCRU in patients with self-identified sleep problems who successfully initiated the therapeutic (index date) between June 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018. Results: A total of 248 patients were analyzed (median age 56.5 years, 57.3% female, mean ISI score 19.13, 52.4% treated with sleep aid medications pre-index). After 9 weeks, mean ISI score declined by 37.2% from baseline (19.1 vs 12.0), 58.8% of patients achieved ISI responder status (ISI score improved by =>7; NNT: 1.7), and 26.6% of patients achieved insomnia remission (ISI score <8; NNT for remission: 3.8). After two-year follow-up, post-index events were reduced (compared to 2 years pre-index) for emergency department visits (-53%; IRR: 0.47; 95% CI 0.27, 0.82; P=0.008), hospiatizations (-21%; IRR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.46, 1.35; P=0.389) and hospital outpatient visits (-13%; IRR: 0.87; 95% CI 0.66, 1.14; P=0.315). Slightly increased rates were observed for ambulatory surgical center visits (2%; IRR: 1.02; 95% CI 0.73, 1.44; P=0.903) and office visits (2%; IRR: 1.02; 95% CI 0.92, 1.14; P=0.672). The number of patients treated with sleep aid medications dropped 18.5% (52.4% pre-index vs 42.7% post-index). Average number of prescriptions decreased from 3.98 pre-index to 3.73 post-index (P= 0.552). Total two-year cost reduction post-index vs pre-index was $510,678, or -$2059 per patient. Conclusion: In a real-world cohort of patients with chronic insomnia, treatment with a digital therapeutic delivering CBT-I was associated with reductions in insomnia severity, emergency department visits, and net costs.

Self-reported symptoms in patients on hemodialysis with moderate to severe secondary hyperparathyroidism receiving combined therapy with cinacalcet and low-dose vitamin D sterols.

Patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism experience a variety of clinical symptoms which may adversely affect physical and mental function. As part of a multicenter, open-label clinical trial, subjects completed a questionnaire that included the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 and 14 kidney disease-related symptoms at multiple time points during the study. Out of the 567 subjects who received at least one dose of cinacalcet, 528 to 535 (93.8-94.4%) completed all or portions of the questionnaire at baseline. The median bioactive parathyroid hormone (PTH) was 294 pg/mL (10%, 90% range, 172-655 pg/mL). Following treatment with cinacalcet and low-dose vitamin D sterols, subjects reported significant improvement in the frequency of pain in muscles, joints and bones, stiff joints, dry skin, itchy skin, excessive thirst, and trouble with memory. At end of the efficacy assessment phase (Weeks 16 to 22), the magnitude of improvement was the greatest in joint pain, bone pain, dry skin, and excessive thirst (>5 on a 0-100 scale; P < 0.001). There were no clinically or statistically significant changes in any of the Short Form-36 subscales or in the physical or mental health composite scores. Among patients on hemodialysis with moderate to severe secondary hyperparathyroidism, treatment with cinacalcet and low-dose vitamin D sterols results in significant improvement in pain in the muscles, joints and bones, joint stiffness, dry and itchy skin, excessive thirst, and trouble with memory.

Clinical and economic outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with stage 3 or stage 4 chronic kidney disease and anemia: the role of intravenous iron therapy.

BACKGROUND: Anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, decreased quality of life, and substantial health care costs. Iron therapy is recommended, usually in combination with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA), in many CKD patients with anemia and low iron levels to raise hemoglobin levels to a range of 10 to 12 grams per deciliter; iron deficiency is defined by a ferritin score less than 100 micrograms (mcg) per liter and transferrin saturation (TSAT) less than 20%. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of intravenous (IV) iron and its associated economic and clinical outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with stage 3 or stage 4 CKD and anemia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis using 2006 and 2007 Medicare 5% Standard Analytic Files (SAF). Use of therapy with IV iron and/or ESAs was identified among patients diagnosed with CKD and anemia. The study index quarter was the first quarter in 2006 during which the patient had primary or secondary diagnoses of both CKD and anemia. Based on the receipt of IV iron or ESA treatment in the index quarter, patients were classified into 1 of 4 treatment groups: IV iron and ESA; IV iron without ESA; ESA without IV iron; neither IV iron nor ESA. Therapy with oral iron was not measurable with this database. Clinical and economic outcomes, including the progression to advanced CKD stages, development of anemia, mortality, hospitalization, and net Medicare reimbursement (i.e., not including patient or supplemental plan contribution) for all-cause health care services, were examined for 1 year following the index quarter. Between-group differences were tested using Pearson chi-square for categorical variables and the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for reimbursement. Multivariate logistic regression models were estimated to assess the associations of mortality, inpatient hospitalization, skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission, and hospice care with treatment regimen, controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 4,310 study patients with both CKD and anemia, 2,913 (67.6%) received neither IV iron nor ESA; 984 (22.8%) received ESA without IV iron; 277 (6.4%) received IV iron and ESA; and 136 (3.2%) received IV iron without ESA in the index quarter. Logistic regression analyses showed that patients receiving neither IV iron nor ESA (reference group) were at increased risk of death compared with patients receiving both IV iron and ESA (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.42-0.90). Additionally, patients receiving neither IV iron nor ESA were more likely to be hospitalized compared with patients receiving both IV iron and ESA (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50-0.87), IV iron without ESA (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.38-0.79), and ESA without IV iron (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.62-0.87). Further, patients not receiving IV iron or ESA were more likely to be admitted to an SNF than patients receiving both IV iron and ESA (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.32-0.61), IV iron without ESA (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36-0.88), and ESA without IV iron (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.47-0.67). Patients receiving neither IV iron nor ESA in the index quarter had the highest mean [SD] total Medicare reimbursement per patient in the subsequent year ($42,353 [$52,887]) compared with patients receiving IV iron without ESA ($28,654 [$32,068]), IV iron and ESA ($34,152 [$30,506]), or ESA without IV iron ($38,172 [$35,591], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use rates of IV iron and ESA in a sample of Medicare enrollees with CKD and anemia in 2006 suggest that anemia management therapies may be underutilized; however, oral iron therapy use was not measurable with the study database, and therapies initiated after the index quarter were not measured. Patients not treated with IV iron or ESA had significantly higher rates of hospitalization and SNF admission than patients treated with either IV iron or ESA. Further, mortality was significantly higher in patients receiving neither IV iron nor ESA than in patients who received IV iron and ESA. Additionally, total all-cause health care costs were higher among patients receiving neither IV iron nor ESA treatment compared with patients treated with IV iron and/or ESA.