Machine learning identifies factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

OBJECTIVE: Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care. METHODS: The web-based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018-2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in-person/telephone/or e-visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care. RESULTS: Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4, MIBS-4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine-related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine-related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care-seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits.

Incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in patients with multiple sclerosis initiating disease-modifying therapies: Retrospective cohort study using a frequentist model averaging statistical framework.

Researchers are increasingly using insights derived from large-scale, electronic healthcare data to inform drug development and provide human validation of novel treatment pathways and aid in drug repurposing/repositioning. The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis with dimethyl fumarate, an activator of the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) pathway, results in a change in incidence of type 2 diabetes and its complications. This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data to derive four cohorts of adults with multiple sclerosis initiating dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate or fingolimod between January 2013 and December 2018. A causal inference frequentist model averaging framework based on machine learning was used to compare the time to first occurrence of a composite endpoint of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, as well as each individual outcome, across the four treatment cohorts. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of incidence for dimethyl fumarate versus teriflunomide for the composite endpoint (restricted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.70 [0.55, 0.90]) and type 2 diabetes (0.65 [0.49, 0.98]), myocardial infarction (0.59 [0.35, 0.97]) and chronic kidney disease (0.52 [0.28, 0.86]). No differences for other individual outcomes or for dimethyl fumarate versus the other two cohorts were observed. This study effectively demonstrated the use of an innovative statistical methodology to test a clinical hypothesis using real-world data to perform early target validation for drug discovery. Although there was a trend among patients treated with dimethyl fumarate towards a decreased incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease relative to other disease-modifying therapies-which was statistically significant for the comparison with teriflunomide-this study did not definitively support the hypothesis that Nrf2 activation provided additional metabolic disease benefit in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Comparison of Treatment Patterns in Patients with Migraine Initiating Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies: A Retrospective Real-World US Study.

Background: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are indicated for migraine prevention in the United States. Limited data comparing real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAbs are available. Objective: To compare the treatment patterns among patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab. Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients with one or more claims for a self-injectable CGRP mAb (galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or erenumab), with continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months pre-index and 6 and 12 months post-index using MerativeTM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases from May 2017 through March 2021. Propensity-score matching was used to address confounding by observed covariates. Outcomes analyzed included proportion of days covered (PDC), medication-possession ratio (MPR), persistence (≤60-day gap), treatment discontinuation, and switch to a non-index drug. Descriptive X2 and t-test analyses were conducted. Results: At the 12-month follow-up, matched galcanezumab and fremanezumab cohorts each comprised 2674 patients and the galcanezumab and erenumab cohorts 3503 each. The mean (SD) PDC and MPR were both 0.6 (0.3) across all cohorts. Based on PDC ≥0.80 and MPR ≥0.80, a greater proportion of galcanezumab vs fremanezumab (46.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.053; 46.8% vs 44.3%, p=0.053) and galcanezumab vs erenumab (46.2% vs 44%, p=0.156; 46.7% vs 44.5%, p=0.262), respectively, initiators were adherent. Compared to galcanezumab, fremanezumab (248.0 days vs 236.5 days, p=0.001), and erenumab (247.8 days vs 241.7 days, p=0.061) initiators had lower mean persistence. Galcanezumab initiators were less likely to discontinue treatment than fremanezumab (47.8% vs 51.7%, p=0.005) and erenumab (47.7% vs 50.2%, p=0.040) initiators. Across cohorts, most switchers initiated onabotulinum toxin A as subsequent treatment. Similar results were observed for 6-month follow-up cohorts. Conclusion: Patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab showed higher persistence and lower treatment discontinuation rates than those initiating either fremanezumab or erenumab.

Migraine-Related Stigma and Its Relationship to Disability, Interictal Burden, and Quality of Life: Results of the OVERCOME (US) Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This population-based analysis characterizes the relative frequency of migraine-related stigma and its cross-sectional relationship to migraine outcomes. We hypothesized that migraine-related stigma would be inversely associated with favorable migraine outcomes across headache day categories. METHODS: OVERCOME (US) is a web-based observational study that annually recruited a demographically representative US sample and then identified people with active migraine using a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire. It also assessed how frequently respondents experienced migraine-related stigma using a novel 12-item questionnaire (Migraine-Related Stigma, MiRS) that contained 2 factors; feeling that others viewed migraine as being used for Secondary Gain (8 items, α = 0.92) and feeling that others were Minimizing disease Burden (4 items, α = 0.86). We defined 5 groups: (1) MiRS-Both (Secondary Gain and Minimizing Burden often/very often; (2) MiRS-SG (Secondary Gain often/very often); (3) MiRS-MB (Minimizing Burden often/very often); (4) MiRS-Rarely/Sometimes; (5) MiRS-Never. Using MiRS group as the independent variable, we modeled its cross-sectional relationship to disability (Migraine Disability Assessment, MIDAS), interictal burden (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4), and migraine-specific quality of life (Migraine Specific Quality of Life v2.1 Role Function-Restrictive) while controlling for sociodemographics, clinical features, and monthly headache day categories. RESULTS: Among this population-based sample with active migraine (n = 59,001), mean age was 41.3 years and respondents predominantly identified as female (74.9%) and as White (70.1%). Among respondents, 41.1% reported experiencing, on average, ≥4 monthly headache days and 31.7% experienced migraine-related stigma often/very often; the proportion experiencing migraine-related stigma often/very often increased from 25.5% among those with <4 monthly headache days to 47.5% among those with ≥15 monthly headache days. The risk for increased disability (MIDAS score) was significant for each MiRS group compared with the MiRS-Never group; the risk more than doubled for the MiRS-Both group (rate ratio 2.68, 95% CI 2.56-2.80). For disability, interictal burden, and migraine-specific quality of life, increased migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disease burden across all monthly headache day categories. DISCUSSION: OVERCOME (US) found that 31.7% of people with migraine experienced migraine-related stigma often/very often and was associated with more disability, greater interictal burden, and reduced quality of life.

Racial variation in healthcare resource utilization and expenditures in knee/hip osteoarthritis patients: a retrospective analysis of a Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability. Prior studies have documented racial disparities in the clinical management of OA. The objective of this study was to assess the racial variations in the economic burden of osteoarthritis within the Medicaid population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database (2012-2019). Newly diagnosed, adult, knee and/or hip OA patients were identified and followed for 24 months. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected at baseline; outcomes, including OA treatments and healthcare resource use (HCRU) and expenditures, were assessed during the 24-month follow-up. We compared baseline patient characteristics, use of OA treatments, and HCRU and costs in OA patients by race (White vs. Black; White vs. Other) and evaluated racial differences in healthcare costs while controlling for underlying differences. The multivariable models controlled for age, sex, population density, health plan type, presence of non-knee/hip OA, cardiovascular disease, low back pain, musculoskeletal pain, presence of moderate to severe OA, and any pre-diagnosis costs. RESULTS: The cohort was 56.7% White, 39.9% Black and 3.4% of Other race (American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, two or more races and other). Most patients (93.8%) had pharmacologic treatment for OA. Inpatient admission during the 24-month follow-up period was lowest among Black patients (25.8%, p < .001 White vs. Black). In multivariable-adjusted models, mean all-cause expenditures were significantly higher in Black patients ($25,974) compared to White patients ($22,913, p < .001). There were no significant differences between White patients and patients of Other race ($22,352). CONCLUSIONS: The higher expenditures among Black patients were despite a lower rate of inpatient admission in Black patients and comparable length and number of hospitalizations in Black and White patients, suggesting that other unmeasured factors may be driving the increased costs among Black OA patients.

Higher healthcare costs were observed in Black Medicaid patients with knee/hip osteoarthritis despite lower rates of inpatient admission. We observed these differences in this Medicaid population, where socioeconomic status is more homogeneous.Black patients had significantly higher healthcare costs compared to White patients and the difference persisted even after accounting for underlying differences in Black and White patients.Higher healthcare costs among Black patients were found in both the baseline and follow-up periods overall for all types of healthcare (hospitalizations, ER, office visit, other services).Higher hospitalization costs in Black patients were observed despite lower rates of hospitalizations in Black patients. These increased costs cannot be attributed to either longer or more frequent hospitalizations; no significant difference in either the length of stay or the number of hospitalizations was observed when comparing Black patients to White patients.

Use of electronic health data to identify patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee and inadequate response to pain medications.

BACKGROUND: No algorithms exist to identify important osteoarthritis (OA) patient subgroups (i.e., moderate-to-severe disease, inadequate response to pain treatments) in electronic healthcare data, possibly due to the complexity in defining these characteristics as well as the lack of relevant measures in these data sources. We developed and validated algorithms intended for use with claims and/or electronic medical records (EMR) to identify these patient subgroups. METHODS: We obtained claims, EMR, and chart data from two integrated delivery networks. Chart data were used to identify the presence or absence of the three relevant OA-related characteristics (OA of the hip and/or knee, moderate-to-severe disease, inadequate/intolerable response to at least two pain-related medications); the resulting classification served as the benchmark for algorithm validation. We developed two sets of case-identification algorithms: one based on a literature review and clinical input (predefined algorithms), and another using machine learning (ML) methods (logistic regression, classification and regression tree, random forest). Patient classifications based on these algorithms were compared and validated against the chart data. RESULTS: We sampled and analyzed 571 adult patients, of whom 519 had OA of hip and/or knee, 489 had moderate-to-severe OA, and 431 had inadequate response to at least two pain medications. Individual predefined algorithms had high positive predictive values (all PPVs ≥ 0.83) for identifying each of these OA characteristics, but low negative predictive values (all NPVs between 0.16-0.54) and sometimes low sensitivity; their sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with all three characteristics was 0.95 and 0.26, respectively (NPV 0.65, PPV 0.78, accuracy 0.77). ML-derived algorithms performed better in identifying this patient subgroup (range: sensitivity 0.77-0.86, specificity 0.66-0.75, PPV 0.88-0.92, NPV 0.47-0.62, accuracy 0.75-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Predefined algorithms adequately identified OA characteristics of interest, but more sophisticated ML-based methods better differentiated between levels of disease severity and identified patients with inadequate response to analgesics. The ML methods performed well, yielding high PPV, NPV, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using either claims or EMR data. Use of these algorithms may expand the ability of real-world data to address questions of interest in this underserved patient population.

Outcomes and Factors Associated with Insufficient Effectiveness of Acute Treatments of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of patient outcomes and treatment effectiveness associated with acute migraine treatments in Japan is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and treatment effectiveness in three acute treatment groups from OVERCOME (Japan): over-the-counter (OTC) only, prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/acetaminophen (Rx-NSAIDs/ACE) only, and triptans. METHODS: OVERCOME (Japan) was an observational, cross-sectional, population-based web survey of people with migraine (July-September 2020). PROs, including the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ), Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Migraine (WPAI-M), were compared pairwise between treatment groups. Logistic regression was used to examine treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: The analysis included 9075 survey respondents (OTC only: n = 5791; Rx-NSAIDs/ACE only: n = 751; triptans: n = 2533). Triptan users reported the lowest MSQ scores, most severe disability (MIDAS: 20.7% versus 6.3% and 11.6%) and severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: 50.1% versus 21.2% and 19.8%), and greatest work impairment (WPAI-M: 50.4% versus 32.2% and 30.8%) compared with the OTC and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was very poor-to-poor for 60.9%, 43.1%, and 47.6% of the triptan, OTC, and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Severe interictal burden was significantly associated with insufficient treatment effectiveness (odds ratios, severe versus no burden: 0.47 [95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.54], 0.56 [0.35-0.89], and 0.41 [0.32-0.52], for the OTC, Rx-NSAIDs/ACE, and triptan groups, respectively). CONCLUSION: People with high migraine burden used triptans for acute treatment, but many reported poor treatment effectiveness. Education may be required to promote better treatments, including earlier introduction of migraine-specific acute and preventive medications.

Disease progression and costs at the 3-year follow-up of the GERAS-US study.

Introduction: GERAS-US prospectively characterized clinical and economic outcomes of early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). Societal cost changes were examined in amyloid-positive patients with mild cognitive impairment due to AD (MCI) and mild dementia due to AD (MILD). Methods: Cognition, function, and caregiver burden were assessed using Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Cognitive Function Index (CFI), and Zarit Burden Interview, respectively. Costs are presented as least square mean for the overall population and for MCI versus MILD using mixed model repeated measures. Results: MMSE score and CFI worsened. Total societal costs (dollars/month) for MCI and MILD, respectively, were higher at baseline ($2430 and $4063) but steady from 6 ($1977 and $3032) to 36 months ($2007 and $3392). Direct non-medical costs rose significantly for MILD. Caregiver burden was higher for MILD versus MCI at 12, 18, and 24 months. Discussion: Function and cognition declined in MILD. Non-medical costs reflect the increasing impact of AD even in its early stages. HIGHLIGHTS: In the GERAS-US study, total societal costs for patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (MCI) and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (MILD) were higher at baseline but steady from 6 to 36 months.Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Cognitive Function Index (CFI) worsened; the rate of decline was significant for patients with MILD but not for those with MCI.There was a rise in direct non-medical costs at 36 months for patients with MILD.Caregiver burden was higher for MILD versus MCI at 12, 18, and 24 months.Slowing the rate of disease progression in this early symptomatic population may allow patients to maintain their ability to carry out everyday activities longer.

Potential Unmet Needs in Acute Treatment of Migraine in Japan: Results of the OVERCOME (Japan) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Using data from the ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE study in Japan (OVERCOME [Japan]), we describe the current status of the acute treatment of migraine in Japan. METHODS: OVERCOME (Japan) was a cross-sectional, observational, population-based web survey of people with migraine in Japan (met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria or had a physician diagnosis of migraine) conducted between July and September 2020. Respondents reported current acute medication use and effectiveness (assessed using the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire [mTOQ-4]). Cardiovascular history and risk factors of the respondents were also recorded. Potential unmet acute treatment needs were defined as insufficient effect of current acute treatments (mTOQ-4 score ≤ 5), a history of oral triptan use (and not currently taking any triptan), potential contraindications to triptans due to cardiovascular comorbidities, and/or cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 17,071 people with migraine in Japan completed the survey; 14,869 (87.1%) of these were currently using acute treatments. Poor effectiveness of current acute treatment was reported by 7170 respondents (42.0%), 900 respondents (5.3%) were former triptan users, 1759 (10.3%) had contraindications to triptans, and 9026 (52.9%) reported at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Overall, 12,649 (74.1%) of OVERCOME (Japan) respondents were categorized into one or more of these groups and were considered to have potential unmet acute treatment needs. CONCLUSION: Almost three-quarters of people with migraine in Japan may have potential unmet needs for acute treatment of migraine. There are substantial opportunities for improving care for people with migraine in Japan, including prescription of novel acute medications.

Evaluating bias control strategies in observational studies using frequentist model averaging.

Estimating a treatment effect from observational data requires modeling treatment and outcome subject to uncertainty/misspecification. A previous research has shown that it is not possible to find a uniformly best strategy. In this article we propose a novel Frequentist Model Averaging (FMA) framework encompassing any estimation strategy and accounting for model uncertainty by computing a cross-validated estimate of Mean Squared Prediction Error (MSPE). We present a simulation study with data mimicking an observational database. Model averaging over 15+ strategies was compared with individual strategies as well as the best strategy selected by minimum MSPE. FMA showed robust performance (Bias, Mean Squared Error (MSE), and Confidence Interval (CI) coverage). Other strategies, such as linear regression, did well in simple scenarios but were inferior to the FMA in a scenario with complex confounding.

Burden of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational Survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study.

INTRODUCTION: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE study in Japan (OVERCOME [Japan]) assessed the impact and burden of migraine in Japan. METHODS: OVERCOME (Japan) was a cross-sectional, observational, population-based web survey of Japanese people with migraine conducted between July and September 2020. The burden and impact of migraine were assessed using the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Migraine scale. Results were stratified by average number of monthly headache days (0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥ 15). RESULTS: In total, 17,071 Japanese people with migraine completed the survey. Of these, 14,033 (82.2%) met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for migraine and 9667 (56.6%) reported a physician diagnosis of migraine. Overall, 20.7% of respondents experienced moderate-to-severe disability (MIDAS). Moderate-to-severe interictal burden (MIBS-4) was experienced by 41.5% of respondents. MSQ scores in all domains were lowest in respondents with the most frequent headaches (≥ 15 monthly headache days) and highest in those with the lowest frequency headaches (≤ 3 monthly headache days), indicating poorer quality of life in those with more frequent headaches. Work time missed due to migraine (absenteeism) increased with increasing headache frequency, from 3.8 to 6.2%; presenteeism affected 29.8-49.9% of work time. Although migraine burden was greatest in people with the most frequent headaches, those with the lowest headache frequency still experienced substantial disability, interictal burden, and impacts on productivity and quality of life. There was also substantial unmet need for migraine care: 36.5% of respondents had ever hesitated to seek medical care for their headaches, and 89.8% had never used preventive medication. CONCLUSION: In Japan, the burden of migraine and barriers to migraine care are substantial. Improving patient awareness and healthcare provider vigilance may help improve patient outcomes.

Comprehensive population-based survey of migraine in Japan: results of the ObserVational Survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) study.

OBJECTIVE: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE study in Japan (OVERCOME [Japan]) aimed to provide an up-to-date assessment of migraine epidemiology in Japan. METHODS: OVERCOME (Japan) was a cross-sectional, population-based web survey of Japanese adults recruited from consumer panels. People with active migraine (met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition [ICHD-3] criteria or had a self-reported physician diagnosis of migraine) answered questions about headache features, physician consultation patterns, and migraine medication use. The burden and impact of migraine were assessed using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scales. RESULTS: In total, 231,747 respondents accessed the screener, provided consent, and were eligible for the survey. The migraine group included 17,071 respondents (mean ± SD age 40.7 ± 13.0 years; 66.5% female). ICHD-3 migraine criteria were met by 14,033 (82.2%) respondents; 9667 (56.6%) self-reported a physician diagnosis of migraine. The mean number of monthly headache days was 4.5 ± 5.7 and pain severity (0-10 scale) was 5.1 ± 2.2. In the migraine group, 20.7% experienced moderate to severe migraine-related disability (MIDAS score ≥ 11). Work productivity loss was 36.2% of work time missed, including 34.3% presenteeism. Only 57.4% of respondents had ever sought medical care for migraine/severe headache. Most respondents (75.2%) were currently using over-the-counter medications for migraine; 36.7% were using prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and only 14.8% were using triptans. Very few (9.2%) used preventive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Unmet needs for migraine health care among people with migraine in Japan include low rates of seeking care and suboptimal treatment.

Costs of Early Stage Alzheimer's Disease in the United States: Cross-Sectional Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study (GERAS-US)1.

BACKGROUND: Costs associated with early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD; mild cognitive impairment [MCI] and mild dementia [MILD]) are understudied. OBJECTIVE: To compare costs associated with MCI and MILD due to AD in the United States. METHODS: Data included baseline patient/study partner medical history, healthcare resource utilization, and outcome assessments as part of a prospective cohort study. Direct, indirect, and total societal costs were derived by applying standardized unit costs to resources for the 1-month pre-baseline period (USD2017). Costs/month for MCI and MILD cohorts were compared using analysis of variance models. To strengthen the confidence of diagnosis, amyloid-ß (Aß) tests were included and analyses were replicated stratifying within each cohort by amyloid status [+ /-]. RESULTS: Patients (N = 1327) with MILD versus MCI had higher total societal costs/month ($4243 versus $2816; p < 0.001). These costs were not significantly different within each severity cohort by amyloid status. The largest fraction of overall costs were informal caregiver costs (45.1%) for the MILD cohort, whereas direct medical patient costs were the largest for the MCI cohort (39.0%). Correspondingly, caregiver time spent on basic activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and supervision time was twice as high for MILD versus MCI (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early AD poses a financial burden, and despite higher functioning among those with MCI, caregivers were significantly impacted. The major cost driver was the patient's clinical cognitive-functional status and not amyloid status. Differences were primarily due to rising need for caregiver support.

Observation of Patient and Caregiver Burden Associated with Early Alzheimer's Disease in the United States: Design and Baseline Findings of the GERAS-US Cohort Study1.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is one of the costliest diseases in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe aspects of real-world patient and caregiver burden in patients with clinician-diagnosed early AD, including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia (MILD) due to AD. METHODS: Cross-sectional assessment of GERAS-US, a 36-month cohort study of patients seeking care for early AD. Eligible patients were categorized based on study-defined categories of MCI and MILD and by amyloid positivity [+] or negativity [-] within each severity cohort. Demographic characteristics, health-related outcomes, medical history, and caregiver burden by amyloid status are described. RESULTS: Of 1,198 patients with clinician-diagnosed early AD, 52% were amyloid[+]. For patients in both cohorts, amyloid[-] was more likely to occur in those with: delayed time to an AD-related diagnosis, higher rates of depression, poorer Bath Assessment of Subjective Quality of Life in Dementia scores, and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (all p < 0.05). MILD[-] patients (versus MILD[+]) were more medically complex with greater rates of depression (55.7% versus 40.4%), sleep disorders (34.3% versus 26.5%), and obstructive pulmonary disease (11.8% versus 6.6%); and higher caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview) (all p < 0.05). MILD[+] patients had lower function according to the Functional Activities Questionnaire (p < 0.001), yet self-assessment of cognitive complaints across multiple measures did not differ by amyloid status in either severity cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable patient and caregiver burden was observed in patients seeking care for memory concerns. Different patterns emerged when both disease severity and amyloid status were evaluated underscoring the need for further diagnostic assessment and care for patients.Study Registry:H8A-US-B004; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02951598.

Evaluating different strategies for estimating treatment effects in observational studies.

Since the introduction of the propensity score (PS), methods for estimating treatment effects with observational data have received growing attention in the literature. Recent research has added substantially to the number of available statistical approaches for controlling confounding in such analyses. However, researchers need guidance to decide on the optimal analytic strategy for any given scenario. To address this gap, we conducted simulations evaluating both well-established methods (regression, PS weighting, stratification, and matching) and more recently proposed approaches (tree-based methods, local control, entropy balancing, genetic matching, prognostic scoring). The simulation scenarios included tree-based and smooth regression models as true data-generation mechanisms. We evaluated an extensive number of analysis strategies combining different treatment choices and outcome models. Key findings include 1) the lack of a single best strategy across all potential scenarios; 2) the importance of appropriately addressing interactions in the treatment choice model and/or outcome model; and 3) a tree-structured treatment choice model and a polynomial outcome model with second-order interactions performed well. One limitation to this initial assessment is the lack of heterogeneous simulation scenarios allowing treatment effects to vary by patient.

Impact of Access Site on Bleeding and Ischemic Events in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel: The ACCOAST Access Substudy.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed whether the choice of vascular access site influenced outcomes among non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients enrolled in the ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction NCT01015287). BACKGROUND: Transfemoral access (TFA) has been associated with the risk of bleeding and increased mortality that is elevated compared to transradial access (TRA) in acute coronary syndromes, although less consistently in NSTE acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) than in STE-ACS. METHODS: The ACCOAST study evaluated a prasugrel loading dose of 60 mg given at the start of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus a split loading dose of 30 mg given at the time of diagnosis of NSTE-ACS (prior to coronary angiography), followed by 30 mg given at the start of PCI. In the study, choice of access site was at the investigator's discretion. We compared ischemic and bleeding outcomes with TFA versus those with TRA, using propensity score correction. RESULTS: Of 4,033 patients, 1,711 (42%) underwent TRA. Use of TRA varied widely by country. TFA was not associated with significant increases in noncoronary bypass graft (CABG)-related thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) (hazard ratio [HR] for TFA = 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 3.62; p = 0.42), nor in GUSTO (Global Utilization Of Streptokinase and Tpa for Occluded arteries) or STEEPLE (Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in PCI) major bleeding after propensity score correction. TFA, however, increased combined non-CABG TIMI major or minor bleeding (HR for TFA = 2.34; 95% CI: 1.17 to 4.69; p = 0.017). Primary ischemic outcomes did not differ by access site, albeit individual endpoint analysis suggested an association between TFA with an increase in urgent revascularizations and reduced risk of procedure-related stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In the ACCOAST trial, TFA did not significantly increase TIMI major bleeding, although TRA was associated with a reduction in TIMI major or minor bleeding. Further study is needed to determine whether wider application of radial approach to NSTE-ACS patients at high risk for bleeding improves overall outcomes. (A Comparison of Prasugrel at PCI or Time of Diagnosis of Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287).

What is Person-Centred Care? A Qualitative Inquiry into Oncology Staff and Patient and Family Experience of Person-Centred Care.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the understanding and practice of person-centred care by health care professionals and support staff at a cancer centre and to learn how patients and family members understand and experience person-centred care. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 used large wall mounted posters and marking pens in public areas of the cancer centre to gather comments from staff, volunteers, students, patients, family members, and visitors to answer the question, "What does person-centred care mean to you?" Phase 2 used a six-question, open-ended, paper-based questionnaire for staff and patients. A manual coding technique was used to derive themes from both posters and questionnaires. RESULTS: We derived 97 themes from the posters and 134 themes from 44 returned questionnaires (survey response rate of 37%). When the themes were combined and reprioritized, we learned that person-centred care is: (1) care that is caring, compassionate, and empathetic; (2) person or patient is the centre of focus; (3) care is unique to the individual's needs; and (4) person or patient is a part of their care. Furthermore, all staff should provide person-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings describe what our staff, patients, and family members believe person-centred care is, and how it should be delivered. Based on this research study, we recommend promoting additional dialogue and continuing education opportunities for health care professionals and other front-line staff who will assist them to complete the statement, "I demonstrate person-centred care by…" to their own satisfaction in the future.

Associations Between Glycemic Control, Depressed Mood, Clinical Depression, and Diabetes Distress Before and After Insulin Initiation: An Exploratory, Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although depression is often associated with poor glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), this observation has been inconsistent. This exploratory, post hoc analysis investigated associations between depression parameters and glycemic control using data from a 24-month, prospective, observational, non-interventional study evaluating glycemic response following insulin initiation for T2DM. METHODS: We analyzed data from a 24-month, prospective, observational study that evaluated glycemic response in patients with T2DM who initiated insulin therapy (N = 985) in 5 European countries. Secondary measures included patient-reported diagnosis of depression at baseline, severity of depressed/anxious mood (EuroQol (EQ)-5D item) and diabetes-related distress (Psychological Distress domain of the Diabetes Health Profile, DHP-18). The latter two measures were assessed at baseline and 5 time points throughout the study. Glycemic control was measured by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at these same time points. Analyses employed t tests to assess the unadjusted baseline difference in HbA1c between patients with and without the respective depression parameter. The potential effect of demographic and clinical confounding variables was controlled through a linear model structure. Patient HbA1c levels were analyzed by presence/absence of a history of diagnosed depression, depressed mood, and diabetes-related distress. RESULTS: Patients with higher depression parameters or distress at baseline had significantly higher rates of microvascular complications at baseline. Patients with a history of diagnosed depression or high diabetes-related distress had higher HbA1c than patients without. HbA1c of patients with or without depressed mood was not significantly different at baseline. The proportion of patients with depressed mood declined after insulin initiation, whereas the proportion of patients with high diabetes-related distress did not significantly change. HbA1c improved following insulin initiation, regardless of presence/absence of studied depression/distress parameters at baseline. CONCLUSION: History of diagnosed depression, diabetes-related distress, and depressed mood were associated with a higher rate of microvascular complications. Diagnosed depression and diabetes-related distress also showed higher HbA1c at baseline when insulin was initiated. Insulin therapy improved glycemic control, while preexisting depressed mood declined and diabetes-related distress remained unchanged.

Healthcare costs and adherence associated with human regular U-500 versus high-dose U-100 insulin in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the characteristics, costs, and adherence of patients receiving human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) compared with those of patients receiving high-dose (≥150 units/day) U-100 insulin. METHODS: Data from Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases, July 1, 2008, through December 31, 2010, were used. The U-100 cohort received ≥150 units/day of U-100 insulin for ≥31 days during the first 60 days after the index date. The U-500R cohort received ≥2 prescriptions of U-500R after the index date. Analyses were performed on propensity-matched cohorts. The changes in annualized costs were compared between the 2 cohorts using paired t tests. Adherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and compared using a 2-sample t test. Glycemic efficacy data were not available in this database. RESULTS: There were 1,044 U-500R-treated patients (19.1% with type 1 diabetes [T1D]) and 11,520 U-100-treated patients (23.8% with T1D) identified, from which 1,039 matched pairs were obtained. The mean decrease of $1,290 in annual pharmacy costs for the U-500R cohort was significantly different from the mean increase of $2,586 for the U-100 cohort (P<.001; 95% confidence interval, -$4,345 to -$3,422). More U-500R patients experienced hypoglycemia (17.3% vs. 11.8%; P<.001), but the hypoglycemia rate per person and related costs were not significantly different between cohorts. Finally, the mean 12-month PDC was 65.0% for U-500R versus 47.6% for U-100 patients (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with treatment with ≥150 units/day of U-100 insulin, treatment with U-500R was associated with decreases in pharmacy costs, a higher percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemia, and greater treatment adherence.