Longterm persistence and nonrecurrence of depression treatment in Germany: a four-year retrospective follow-up using linked claims data.

OBJECTIVES: To measure persistence and nonrecurrence of depression treatment and investigate potential risk factors. METHODS: We retrospectively observed a closed cohort of insurees with new-onset depression treatment in 2007 and without most psychiatric comorbidity for 16 quarters (plus one to ascertain discontinuation). We linked inpatient/outpatient/drug-data per person and quarter. Person-quarters containing specified depression services were classified as depression-treatment-person-quarters (DTPQ). We defined longterm-DTPQ-persistence as 16 + 1 continuous DTPQ and longterm-DTPQ-nonrecurrence as 12 continuous quarters without DTPQ and used multivariate logistic regression to explore associations with these outcomes. RESULTS: Within first 16 quarters, 28,348 patients' first period (total time) persisted for a mean/median 5.4/3 (8.7/8) quarters. Fourteen percent had longterm-DTPQ-persistence, associated (p < .05) with baseline hospital (odds ratio, OR = 1.80), psychotherapy/specialist-interview and antidepressants (OR = 1.81), age (years, OR = 1.03), unemployment (OR = 1.21), retirement (OR = 1.31), and insured as a dependent (OR = 1.32). Thirty-four percent had longterm-DTPQ-nonrecurrence, associated with psychotherapy/specialist-interview (OR = 1.40), antidepressants (OR = 0.54), female sex (OR = 0.84), age (years, OR = 0.99), retirement (OR = 1.18), and insured as a dependent (OR = 0.88). Women differed for episodic and not chronic treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment measures compared to survey's symptoms measures. We suggest further research on "treatment-free-time." Antidepressants(-) and psychotherapy/specialist-interview(+) were significantly associated with longterm-DTPQ-nonrecurrence. This was presumably moderated by possible short-time/low-dosage antidepressants use(-) and selective therapy assignment(+). Sample selectivity limited data misclassification.

Depression-related treatment and costs in Germany: Do they change with comorbidity? A claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Existing diverse bottom-up estimations of direct costs associated with depression in Germany motivated a detailed patient-level analysis of depression-related treatment (DRT), -costs (DRC) and Comorbidity. METHODS: A large sickness fund's claims data was used to retrospectively identify patients aged 18-65 years with new-onset depression treatment between January 1st and February 15th 2010, and follow them until December 31st 2010, describe DRT, estimate associated DRC, and predict DRC with a generalised linear model. RESULTS: A total of 18,139 patients were analysed. Mean direct DRC were €783. Predictors of DRC regarding psychiatric comorbidities were: "Delusion, psychotic disorders and personality disorders" (DRC-ratio 1.72), "Alcohol/drug addiction" (1.82), "abuse of alcohol/drugs" (1.57). Predictors of DRC regarding medical comorbidities were: "Rheumatoid arthritis" (0.77), "atherosclerosis" (0.65), "pregnancy" (0.66), and "Osteoarthritis" (1.87). Of all patients, 60.8% received their most intense/specialised DRT from a general practitioner, a medical specialist (23.7%), a psychotherapist (8.0%), a medical specialist and psychotherapist (2.9%), or in hospital (4.6%). Serious psychiatric comorbidity nearly tripled depression-related hospitalisation rates. LIMITATIONS: Seasonal affective disorder and missing psychiatric outpatient clinic data must be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated DRC are significantly below the assessment of the German national guideline. Differing definitions of observation period and cost attribution might explain differing German DRC results. Signs of hospital psychiatric comorbidity bias indicate overestimation of hospital DRC. Identified associations of DRC with certain medical diseases in older adults warrant further research. Up to one quarter of patients with severe depression diagnosis might lack specialist treatment.

Safety of bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis on adverse events seen with bevacizumab to combine the existing evidence about its safety in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify published, randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab in cancer patients with data on adverse events available. The primary endpoint was "severe adverse event," a composite of grade 3 and 4 adverse events. Secondary endpoints for the exploratory analysis were individual adverse events. We used random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible publications were identified and eight trials reported the primary endpoint. Compared with the control group, the bevacizumab group had a slightly higher risk for any severe adverse event (pooled relative risk, 1.10; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.01-1.19). The pooled risk difference was 7% (95% CI, 1%-13%), with a number needed to harm of 14 treated patients. Exploratory analyses showed a statistically significant higher risk for eight of the 15 evaluated secondary endpoints: bevacizumab was associated with a fourfold higher risk for hypertension, epistaxis, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage/perforation; a threefold higher risk for any bleeding events; and a lower, but elevated risk for proteinuria, leukopenia, diarrhea, and asthenia. No statistically significant differences were found for any thrombotic event (arterial or venous), hemoptysis, cardiac event, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, impaired wound healing, or death related to an adverse event. CONCLUSION: Treatment with bevacizumab was associated with a slightly higher risk for any severe (grade 3 or 4) adverse event in patients with cancer. The result may impact individual benefit-risk assessments and policy guidelines.

Waiting times for elective treatments according to insurance status: A randomized empirical study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance coverage for all citizens is often considered a requisite for reducing disparities in health care accessibility. In Germany, health insurees are covered either by statutory health insurance (SHI) or private health insurance (PHI). Due to a 20%-35% higher reimbursement of physicians for patients with PHI, it is often claimed that patients with SHI are faced with longer waiting times when it comes to obtaining outpatient appointments. There is little empirical evidence regarding outpatient waiting times for patients with different health insurance status in Germany. METHODS: We called 189 specialist practices in the region of Cologne, Leverkusen, and Bonn. Practices were selected from publicly available telephone directories (Yellow Pages 2006/2007) for the specified region. Data were collected for all practices within each of five specialist fields. We requested an appointment for one of five different elective treatments (allergy test plus pulmonary function test, pupil dilation, gastroscopy, hearing test, MRT of the knee) by calling selected practices. The caller was randomly assigned the status of private or statutory health insuree. The total period of data collection amounted to 4.5 weeks in April and May 2006. RESULTS: Between 41.7% and 100% of the practices called were included according to specialist field. We excluded practices that did not offer the requested treatment, were closed for more than one week, did not answer the call, did not offer fixed appointments ("open consultation hour") or did not accept any newly registered patients. Waiting time difference between private and statutory policyholders was 17.6 working days (SHI 26.0; PHI 8.4) for allergy test plus pulmonary function test; 17.0 (25.2; 8.2) for pupil dilation; 24.8 (36.7; 11.9) for gastroscopy; 4.6 (6.8; 2.2) for hearing test and 9.5 (14.1; 4.6) for the MRT of the knee. In relative terms, the difference in working days amounted to 3.08 (95%-KI: 1,88 bis 5,04) and proved significant. CONCLUSION: Even with comprehensive health insurance coverage for almost 100% of the population, Germany shows clear differences in access to care, with SHI patients waiting 3.08 times longer for an appointment than PHI patients. Wide-spread anecdotal reports of shorter waiting times for PHI patients were empirically supported. Discrepancies in access to care not only depend on accessibility to comprehensive health insurance cover, but also on the level of reimbursement for the physician. Higher reimbursements for the provider when it comes to comparable health problems and diagnostic treatments could lead to improved access to care. We conclude that incentives for adjusting access to care according to the necessity of treatment should be implemented.