Barriers and Solutions to Improve Therapeutic Adherence from the Perspective of Primary Care and Hospital-Based Physicians.

Purpose: To identify the barriers affecting treatment adherence in patients with chronic disease and to determine solutions through the physician's opinion of primary care and hospital settings. Methods: An observational study using the nominal group technique was performed to reach a consensus from experts. A structured face-to-face group discussion was carried out with physicians with more than 10 years of experience in the subject of treatment adherence/compliance in either the primary care setting or the hospital setting. The experts individually rated a list of questions using the Likert scale and prioritized the top 10 questions to identify barriers and seek solutions afterward. The top 10 questions that obtained the maximum score for both groups of experts were prioritized. During the final discussion group, participating experts analyzed the prioritized items and debated on each problem to reach consensual solutions for improvement. Results: A total of 17 professionals experts participated in the study, nine of them were from a primary care setting. In the expert group from the primary care setting, the proposed solution for the barrier identified as the highest priority was to simplify treatments, measure adherence and review medication. In the expert group from the hospital setting, the proposed solution for the barrier identified as the highest priority was training on motivational clinical interviews for healthcare workers undergraduate and postgraduate education. Finally, the expert participants proposed implementing an improvement plan with eight key ideas. Conclusion: A consensual improvement plan to facilitate the control of therapeutic adherence in patients with chronic disease was developed, taking into account expert physicians' opinions from primary care and hospital settings about barriers and solutions to address therapeutic adherence in patients with chronic disease.

Consequences on economic outcomes of generic versus brand-name drugs used in routine clinical practice: the case of treating peripheral neuropathic pain or generalized anxiety disorder with pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies are seen between arguments in favor of and against prescribing generic versus brand-name drugs. OBJECTIVE: To provide real-world evidence on treatment persistence, economic and clinical outcomes of pregabalin, generic versus brand-name (Lyrica®, Pfizer), routinely used to treat neuropathic pain (NP) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Electronic medical records from subjects' first starting treatment with pregabalin between January-2015 and June-2016 were analyzed. Persistence, resources utilization, and costs were assessed, along with remitter and responder rates. RESULTS: A total of 4860 records were analyzed. Discontinuation was lower with brand-name than with generic in NP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58-0.85], p < 0.001) and GAD patients (HR: 0.63 [0.45-0.84], p < 0.001). Adjusted mean total costs were lower with brand-name: €1500 [1428-1573] vs. €2003 [1864-2143] in NP and €1528 [1322-1734] vs. €2150 [1845-2454] in GAD (both p < 0.001). More patients were remitters/ responders with brand-name in NP (55.0% vs. 46.7% and 59.2% vs. 48.4%, respectively; p < 0.001) and GAD (58.6% vs. 48.7% and 64.6% vs. 47.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence of higher persistence in routine practice, patients who first started therapy with pregabalin brand-name versus generic showed better pain or anxiety outcomes at a lower cost to payers in Spain.

Cost of treating peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine practice.

AIM: To analyze the cost of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) treatment with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Analysis of a retrospective, observational study of electronic medical records of patients treated for PNP with therapeutic doses of pregabalin or gabapentin, with 2 years' follow-up, considering PNP type, comorbidities, concomitant analgesia and resource use. RESULTS: The weighted total average cost/patient was lower for pregabalin than gabapentin (€2464 [2197-2730] vs €3142 [2670-3614]; p = 0.014) due to significantly lower both healthcare and non-healthcare costs. This is explained by a significantly lower use of concomitant analgesia, fewer primary care visits and fewer days of sick leave. CONCLUSION: At therapeutic doses, pregabalin was found to have lower healthcare and non-healthcare costs than gabapentin in routine practice.

Cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice: impact of their loss of exclusivity.

To analyze the effect of loss of exclusivity of data on the cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice. A retrospective observational study, with electronic medical records for patients enrolled at primary care centers managed by the health care provider Badalona Serveis Assistencials, who initiated treatment of PNP with pregabalin or gabapentin. The analysis used drugs and resources prices for year 2015. The 1163 electronic medical records (pregabalin; N = 764, gabapentin; N = 399) for patients (62.2% women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 59.2 (14.7) years were analyzed. Treatment duration was slightly shorter with pregabalin than with gabapentin (5.2 vs 5.5 months; P = 0.124), with mean doses of 227.4 (178.6) mg and 900.0 (443.4) mg, respectively. The average study drug cost per patient was higher for pregabalin than for gabapentin; €214.6 (206.3) vs €157.4 (181.9), P < 0.001, although the cost of concomitant analgesic medication was lower; €176.5 (271.8) vs €306.7 (529.2), P < 0.001. The adjusted average total cost per patient was lower in those treated with pregabalin than in those treated with gabapentin; €2,413 (2119-2708) vs €3201 (2806-3.597); P = 0.002, owing to significantly lower health care costs; €1307 (1247-1367) vs €1538 (1458-1618), P < 0.001, and also non-health care costs; €1106 (819-1393) vs €1663 (1279-2048), P = 0.023, that was caused by a significantly lower use of concomitant medication, fewer medical visits to primary care, and fewer days of sick leave. After loss of exclusivity of both drugs, pregabalin continued to show lower health care and non-health care costs than gabapentin in the treatment of PNP in routine clinical practice.

Pregabalin for the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder with inadequate treatment response to antidepressants and severe depressive symptoms.

To evaluate the effectiveness of pregabalin in patients with resistant generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and severe depressive symptoms, we carried out a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective, and observational 6-month study. We included patients who were at least 18 years old, fulfilled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) criteria for GAD, showed inadequate responses to previous courses of antidepressant treatment, had Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale scores of at least 35, had not received pregabalin previously, and were prescribed pregabalin upon entry into this study. We included 1815 patients fulfilling the DSM-IV criteria for GAD, and 133 (7.3%) fulfilled the selection criteria for these analyses. Ninety-seven percent of the patients received pregabalin (mean dose: 222 mg/day) in combination with other psychotropics. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale total score was reduced by a mean of 20.3 points (95% confidence interval, 22.1-18.4) (57.2% reduction) at month 6. Pregabalin also ameliorated comorbid depressive symptoms, with a reduction in the mean score of the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale of 22.3 points (95% confidence interval, 24.2-20.4) (56.6% reduction). Our results suggest that pregabalin, as part of a combination regimen with antidepressants and/or benzodiazepines, might be effective for the treatment of patients with GAD who have shown inadequate response to previous antidepressants and have severe depressive symptoms.

Effectiveness of pregabalin as monotherapy or combination therapy for neuropathic pain in patients unresponsive to previous treatments in a Spanish primary care setting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients from a previous study of neuropathic pain (NP) in the Spanish primary care setting still had symptoms despite treatment. Subsequently, patients were treated as prescribed by their physician and followed up for 3 months. Since pregabalin has been shown to be effective in NP, including refractory cases, the objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin therapy in patients with NP refractory to previous treatments. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pregabalin-naïve NP patients treated with pregabalin in a 3-month follow-up observational multicenter study to assess symptoms and satisfaction with treatment. Patients were evaluated with the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Treatment Satisfaction for Medication Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) overall satisfaction domain. RESULTS: 1,670 patients (mean age 58 years, 59 % women), previously untreated or treated with ≥1 drug other than pregabalin, were treated with pregabalin (37 % on monotherapy). At 3 months, pain intensity and its interference with activities decreased by half (p < 0.0001), while the number of days with no or mild pain increased by a mean of 4.5 days (p < 0.0001). Treatment satisfaction increased twofold (p < 0.0001). Patients with a shorter history of pain and those with neuralgia and peripheral nerve compression syndrome (PCS) as etiologies had the highest proportion on monotherapy and showed the greatest improvements in pain-related parameters in their respective group categories. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pregabalin (as monotherapy or combination therapy) provides benefits in pain and treatment satisfaction in patients with NP, including refractory cases. Shorter disease progression and neuralgia and PCS etiologies are favorable factors for pregabalin treatment response.

The assessment of generalized anxiety disorder: psychometric validation of the Spanish version of the self-administered GAD-2 scale in daily medical practice.

AIM: To psychometrically validate the Spanish version of the self-administered 2-item GAD-2 scale for screening probable patients with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: The GAD-2 was self-administered by patients diagnosed with GAD according to DSM-IV criteria and by age- and sex-matched controls who were recruited at random in mental health and primary care centres. Criteria validity was explored using ROC curve analysis, and sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were determined for different cut-off values. Concurrent validity was also established using the HAM-A, HADS, and WHODAS II scales. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 212 subjects (106 patients with GAD) with a mean age of 50.38 years (SD = 16.76). No items of the scale were left blank. Floor and ceiling effects were negligible. No patients with GAD had to be assisted to complete the questionnaire. Reliability (internal consistency) was high; Cronbach's α = 0.875. A cut-off point of 3 showed adequate sensitivity (91.5%) and specificity (85.8%), with a statistically significant area under the curve (AUC = 0.937, p < 0.001), to distinguish GAD patients from controls. Concurrent validity was also high and significant with HAM-A (0.806, p < 0.001), HADS (anxiety domain, 0.825, p < 0.001) and WHO-DAS II (0.642, p < 0.001) scales. CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of the GAD-2 scale has been shown to have appropriate psychometric properties to rapidly detect probable cases of GAD in the Spanish cultural context under routine clinical practice conditions.

Cultural adaptation into Spanish of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale as a screening tool.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a prevalent mental health condition which is underestimated worldwide. This study carried out the cultural adaptation into Spanish of the 7-item self-administered GAD-7 scale, which is used to identify probable patients with GAD. METHODS: The adaptation was performed by an expert panel using a conceptual equivalence process, including forward and backward translations in duplicate. Content validity was assessed by interrater agreement. Criteria validity was explored using ROC curve analysis, and sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value and negative value for different cut-off values were determined. Concurrent validity was also explored using the HAM-A, HADS, and WHO-DAS-II scales. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 212 subjects (106 patients with GAD) with a mean age of 50.38 years (SD = 16.76). Average completion time was 2'30''. No items of the scale were left blank. Floor and ceiling effects were negligible. No patients with GAD had to be assisted to fill in the questionnaire. The scale was shown to be one-dimensional through factor analysis (explained variance = 72%). A cut-off point of 10 showed adequate values of sensitivity (86.8%) and specificity (93.4%), with AUC being statistically significant [AUC = 0.957-0.985); p < 0.001]. The scale significantly correlated with HAM-A (0.852, p < 0.001), HADS (anxiety domain, 0.903, p < 0.001), and WHO-DAS II (0.696, p > 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Elderly people, particularly those very old, may need some help to complete the scale. CONCLUSION: After the cultural adaptation process, a Spanish version of the GAD-7 scale was obtained. The validity of its content and the relevance and adequacy of items in the Spanish cultural context were confirmed.