Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Treatments in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes following COVID-19 exist, in part, due to factors involving healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to characterize disparities in the administration of evidence-based COVID-19 treatments among patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

METHODS

Using a large, US hospital database, initiation of COVID-19 treatments was compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between May 2020 and April 2022 according to patient race and ethnicity. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of race and ethnicity on the likelihood of receiving COVID-19 treatments, stratified by baseline supplemental oxygen requirement.

RESULTS

The identified population comprised 317,918 White, 76,715 Black, 9297 Asian, and 50,821 patients of other or unknown race. There were 329,940 non-Hispanic, 74,199 Hispanic, and 50,622 patients of unknown ethnicity. White patients were more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments, and specifically corticosteroids, compared to Black, Asian, and other patients (COVID-19 treatment: 87% vs. 81% vs. 85% vs. 84%, corticosteroids: 85% vs. 79% vs. 82% vs. 82%). After covariate adjustment, White patients were significantly more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments than Black patients across all levels of supplemental oxygen requirement. No clear trend in COVID-19 treatments according to ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was observed.

CONCLUSION

There were important racial disparities in inpatient COVID-19 treatment initiation, including the undertreatment of Black patients and overtreatment of White patients. Our new findings reveal the actual magnitude of this issue in routine clinical practice to clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers. This is crucial to ensuring equitable and appropriate access to evidence-based therapies.

Remdesivir Reduced Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Across Variant Waves: Findings From Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, yet treatment strategies for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 reflect variations in clinical practice. In this comparative effectiveness study, we investigated the effect of remdesivir treatment on inpatient mortality among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all variants of concern (VOC) periods.

METHODS

Data for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AITM Healthcare Database. Patients who received remdesivir within 2 days of hospitalization were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to patients who did not receive remdesivir. Additional matching criteria included admission month, age group, and hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of remdesivir on risk of 14- and 28-day mortality during VOC periods.

RESULTS

A total of 19 184 remdesivir patients were matched to 11 213 non-remdesivir patients. Overall, 11.1% and 17.7% of remdesivir patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 22.4% of non-remdesivir patients. Remdesivir was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .62-.78) and 28 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, .68-.83). The survival benefit remained significant during the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt initiation of remdesivir in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is associated with significant survival benefit across all variant waves. These findings provide much-needed evidence relating to the effectiveness of a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients among a high-risk population.

Remdesivir Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen Including Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Across SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Background

This comparative effectiveness study investigated the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen including low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation (HFO/NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (IMV/ECMO) across variant of concern (VOC) periods.

Methods

Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 and administered remdesivir upon admission were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients not administered remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by supplemental oxygen requirement upon admission and VOC period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 14- and 28-day mortality.

Results

Patients treated with remdesivir (67 582 LFO, 34 857 HFO/NIV, and 4164 IMV/ECMO) were matched to non-remdesivir patients. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly lower for remdesivir-treated patients at 14 days (LFO: 6.4% vs. 8.8%; HFO/NIV: 16.8% vs. 19.4%; IMV/ECMO: 27.8% vs. 35.3%) and 28 days (LFO: 9.8% vs. 12.3%; HFO/NIV: 25.8% vs. 28.3%; IMV/ECMO: 41.4% vs. 50.6%). After adjustment, remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality at 14 days (LFO: aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and 28 days (LFO: aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82) compared with non-remdesivir treatment. Lower risk of mortality among remdesivir-treated patients was observed across VOC periods.

Conclusions

Remdesivir treatment is associated with significantly reduced mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen upon admission, including those requiring HFO/NIV or IMV/ECMO with severe or critical disease, across VOC periods.

Clinical outcomes by supplemental oxygen use in remdesivir-treated, hospitalised adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials show different effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes relative to COVID-19 severity at hospital admission; in Europe, there are few real-world data.

METHODS

A multicentre, multinational retrospective cohort study in adult patients hospitalised with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 was conducted to understand remdesivir clinical use in different countries and to describe outcomes for patients receiving remdesivir stratified by oxygen use. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at day 28 and hospitalisation duration. Patients were categorised by baseline disease severity: no supplemental oxygen (NSO); low flow oxygen ≤ 6 litres (l)/minute (LFO); high flow oxygen > 6 l/minute (HFO).

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-eight (448) patients (72 [16.1%] HFO; 295 [65.8%] LFO; 81 (18.1%] NSO) were included; median age was 65 years and 64% were male. Mortality was higher in patients on HFO (rate 23.6%) compared to LFO (10.2%; p = 0.001) or NSO (6.2%; p = 0.002). Duration of hospitalisation was longer in patients on HFO (13 days) compared to LFO (9 days; p = 0.003) and NSO (9 days; p = 0.021). Patients who initiated remdesivir ≥ 2 days compared to within a day of hospitalisation had a 4.2 times higher risk of death, irrespective of age, sex, comorbidities, and oxygen support at baseline. Requirement for mechanical ventilation/ECMO and readmission within 28 days of discharge was similar across groups. Remdesivir use and outcomes differed by country.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation was seen in remdesivir-treated COVID-19 patients on HFO compared to LFO and NSO. Initiation of remdesivir upon admission as opposed to delayed initiation has a mortality benefit.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04847622.

1155. Short vs. Long Symptom Duration Prior to Remdesivir for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) has been a mainstay of COVID-19 therapy for hospitalized patients. Impact of RDV timing in relationship to symptom-onset in hospitalized patients remains unclear, though early treatment is theorized to improve antiviral activity and clinical outcomes.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study of adult patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 treated with RDV. Patient charts were reviewed by 2 independent investigators to determine disease course and outcomes. Patients were stratified based on time from symptom-onset to RDV (short: ≤7 vs. long: >7 days). The primary outcome was time to clinical recovery within 28 days. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients recovered and proportion discharged from the hospital within 10, 14, and 28 days; and mortality within 28 days. Time to recovery was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the significance was tested by log rank tests. Cox’s proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR). Fisher’s exact test was used to compare recovery rates between groups.

Results

Overall, 405 patient charts were reviewed, and 337 met the inclusion criteria. On the first day of RDV, 178 (53%) of patients had symptoms for <7 days, while 159 (47%) of patients had symptoms for >7 days. Patients in the short symptom duration group were slightly older (66.5 vs. 59 years, p=0.004) and had more co-morbidities. Median time to recovery was 7 (95% CI 5-9) in the short- vs. 5 (95% CI 4-6) days in the long-symptom duration groups, respectively, p=0.066. By day 10, 111 (62%) vs. 116 (73%) patients met the clinical recovery definition (p=0.048), and 113 (63%) vs. 119 (75%) patients were discharged from the hospital (p=0.026) in the short- vs. long-symptom duration groups, respectively. In the Cox’s proportional hazards model, age, disease severity, and co-morbidities (kidney, liver, chronic respiratory diseases, and type II diabetes mellitus) were associated with longer recovery times.

Conclusion

In this cohort, long duration of symptoms ( >7 days) prior to initiation of RDV therapy was not associated with longer recovery time or longer hospitalization. Additional studies are needed to elucidate benefits of RDV therapy in relationship to the time course of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Disclosures

Ramy H. Elshaboury, PharmD, Eli Lilly: Honoraria|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support Fiona Cheung, PharmD, Pfizer Inc.: Employee Bryan Polsonetti, PharmD, Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employee|Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead: Employee|Gilead: Stocks/Bonds Linda Chen, MPH, Gilead Sciences: Employee|Gilead Sciences: Stocks/Bonds|UCB pharmaceuticals: Stocks/Bonds Elizabeth Hohmann, MD, Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|Kowa Pharmaceuticals: Advisor/Consultant|Tend, Inc: Grant/Research Support.

Association of Remdesivir Treatment With Mortality Among Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 in the United States

IMPORTANCE

SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, poses considerable morbidity and mortality risks. Studies using data collected during routine clinical practice can supplement randomized clinical trials to provide needed evidence, especially during a global pandemic, and can yield markedly larger sample sizes to assess outcomes for important patient subgroups.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of remdesivir treatment with inpatient mortality among patients with COVID-19 outside of the clinical trial setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study in US hospitals using health insurance claims data linked to hospital chargemaster data from December 1, 2018, to May 3, 2021, was conducted among 24 856 adults hospitalized between May 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021, with newly diagnosed COVID-19 who received remdesivir and 24 856 propensity score-matched control patients.

EXPOSURE

Remdesivir treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause inpatient mortality within 28 days of the start of remdesivir treatment for the remdesivir-exposed group or the matched index date for the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 24 856 remdesivir-exposed patients (12 596 men [50.7%]; mean [SD] age, 66.8 [15.4] years) and 24 856 propensity score-matched control patients (12 621 men [50.8%]; mean [SD] age, 66.8 [15.4] years) were included in the study. Median follow-up was 6 days (IQR, 4-11 days) in the remdesivir group and 5 days (IQR, 2-10 days) in the control group. There were 3557 mortality events (14.3%) in the remdesivir group and 3775 mortality events (15.2%) in the control group. The 28-day mortality rate was 0.5 per person-month in the remdesivir group and 0.6 per person-month in the control group. Remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant 17% reduction in inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with propensity score-matched control patients (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.79-0.87]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this retrospective cohort study using health insurance claims and hospital chargemaster data, remdesivir treatment was associated with a significantly reduced inpatient mortality overall among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Results of this analysis using data collected during routine clinical practice and state-of-the-art methods complement results from randomized clinical trials. Future areas of research include assessing the association of remdesivir treatment with inpatient mortality during the circulation of different variants and relative to time from symptom onset.

Clinical Management of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in the United States

Background

The objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time.

Methods

Adult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020–December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined.

Results

The study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54–77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO.

Conclusions

Clinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.

459. COVID-19 Hospitalization and 30-Day Readmission: A Cohort Study of U.S. Hospitals

Background

Evidence on outcomes after COVID-19 hospitalization is limited. This study aimed to characterize 30-day readmission beyond the initial COVID-19 hospitalization.

Methods

This descriptive retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted between 07/01/2020 and 01/31/2021 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 (ICD-10-CM: U07.1), using a large hospital inpatient chargemaster with a linked open claims dataset. The first COVID-19 hospitalization was considered index hospitalization; baseline was defined as first 2 days of index hospitalization; readmission was assessed within 30 days of discharge from index hospitalization. We describe the demographics, treatments and outcomes of the index hospitalization and readmission.

Results

For index hospitalization, we identified 111,624 COVID-19 patients from 327 hospitals across US. Mean age was 63 and 54% were male. Over the study period, use of remdesivir (RDV) increased from 11% to 50% while use of steroids (66% -73%) and anticoagulants (32% - 35%) remained relatively stable (Figure 1). Overall, 21% required ICU or CCU admission, 13% died, and median length of stay (LOS) was 7 days (range 4 -11 days). Among 61,182 (55%) with ≥ 30-day follow-up post discharge, all-cause 30-day readmission was 16% and remained stable (15% - 17%) over the study period; median days to readmission was 6 days (range 1-30). All-cause readmission (13 % vs 17%) was lower in patients treated with RDV during index hospitalization over time (Figure 2), particularly in those requiring high flow oxygen (17% vs 18%), low flow oxygen (13% vs 16%) or no oxygen (12% vs 17%), but not in ECMO or invasive ventilation (33% vs 29%). Compared to non-readmitted, readmitted patients were older (60 vs 65), had more comorbidities such as COPD (24% vs 37%) (see Table 1) and LOS (6 vs 7 days) in index hospitalization. Overall, the most frequent diagnoses of readmission were COVID-19 (63%), other viral pneumonia (36%), and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (34%).

Conclusion

In a large, geographically diverse cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 16% required readmission, especially in those with greater age and comorbidities. Over the study period, all-cause readmission remained stable and was lower in RDV treated patients.

Disclosures

Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Shuting Liang, MPH, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Henry Morgan Stewart, PhD, IQVIA (Employee) Mark Thrun, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Paul Hodgkins, PhD, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Richard Haubrich, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder)

536. Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Treated with Remdesivir-NEAT ID 909REM Study

Background

There are few real-world data on the use of remdesivir (RDV) looking at timing of initiation in relation to symptom onset and severity of presenting disease.

Methods

We conducted multi-country retrospective study of clinical practice and use of RDV in COVID-19 patients. De-identified medical records data were entered into an e-CRF. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at day 28 and hospitalization duration. We assessed time from symptom onset to RDV start and re-admission. We included adults with PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 who were hospitalized after Aug 31, 2020 and received at least 1 dose of RDV. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the mortality rate, LogRank test to compare groups defined by severity of disease. Competing risk regression with discharge and death as competing events was used to estimate duration of hospitalization, and Gray’s test to compare the groups.

Results

448 patients in 5 countries (12 sites) were included. Demographics are summarized (table) by 3 disease severity groups at baseline: no supplemental oxygen (NSO), low flow oxygen ≤6 L/min (LFO), and high-flow oxygen > 6L/min (HFO). No demographic differences were found between groups except for the higher percentage of cancer/chemotherapy patients in NSO group. Corticosteroids use was HFO 73.6%, LFO 62.7%, NSO 58.0%. Mortality rate was significantly lower in NSO, and LFO groups compared with HFO (6.2%, 10.2%, 23.6%, respectively; Fig1). Median duration of hospitalization was 9 (95%CI 8-10), 9 (8-9), 13 (10-15) days, respectively (Fig2). Median time from first symptom to RDV start was 7 days in all 3 groups. Patients started RDV on day 1 of hospitalization in HFO and LFO and day 2 on NSO groups. And received a 5 day course (median). Readmission within 28-days of discharge was < 5% and similar across all 3 groups.

Table 1. Patients baseline characteristics and primary and secondary outcomes

Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality

Figure 2. Competing-risks regression of discharge from hospital

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients, RDV use was consistent across countries. RDV was started within a median of 7 days from symptom within 2 days of admission and given for a median of 5 days. Higher mortality rate and duration of hospitalization was seen in the HFO group and similar rates seen in the LFO and NSO groups. Readmission was consistently low across all 3 groups.

Disclosures

François Raffi, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Consultant)MSD (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Roche (Consultant)Theratechnologies (Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Nadir Arber, MD, MSc, MHA, Check cap (Consultant)Coved cd 24 (Board Member)Israel Innovation Authority (Research Grant or Support)Nucleix (Advisor or Review Panel member)Zion Pharmaceuticals (Advisor or Review Panel member) Casper Rokx, MD PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Ameet Bakhai, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FESC, Bayer AG (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Boehringer Ingelheim (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Daiichi-Sankyo Europe (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Johnson & Johnson (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)MSD (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Roche (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Sanofi (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor) Alex Soriano, MD, Angelini (Speaker's Bureau)Gilead Sciences (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Menarini (Speaker's Bureau)MSD (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Pfizer (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Shionogi (Speaker's Bureau) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support)MSD (Consultant) Vicente Estrada, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member)MSD (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Theratechnologies (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant) Adrian Curran, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)MSD (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Richard Haubrich, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Paul Hodgkins, PhD, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Anton Pozniak, MD, FRCP, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member)Theratec (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)

38. Remdesivir Treatment in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Comparative Analysis of In-Hospital All-Cause Mortality

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) reduced time to recovery and mortality in some subgroups of hospitalized patients in the NIAID ACTT-1 RCT compared to placebo. Comparative effectiveness data in clinical practice are limited.

Methods

Using the Premier Healthcare Database, we compared survival for adult non-mechanically ventilated hospitalized COVID-19 patients between Aug-Nov 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs. those who did not receive RDV. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Patients were matched on baseline O2 and 2-month admission period and were excluded if discharged within 3 days of RDV initiation (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hrs consistent with ACTT-1 study). Time to 14- and 28-day mortality was examined separately for patients on high-flow/non-invasive ventilation (NIV), low-flow, and no supplemental O2 using Cox Proportional Hazards models.

Results

RDV patients (n=27,559) were matched to unique non-RDV patients (n=15,617) (Fig 1). The two groups were balanced; median age 66 yrs and 73% white (RDV); 68 yrs and 74% white (non-RDV), and 55% male. At baseline, 21% required high-flow O2, 50% low-flow O2, and 29% no O2, overall.

Mortality in RDV patients was 9.6% and 13.8% on days 14 and 28, respectively. For non-RDV patients, mortality was 14.0% and 17.3% on days 14 and 28, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves for time to mortality are shown in Fig 2. After adjusting for baseline and clinical covariates, RDV patients on no O2 and low-flow O2 had a significantly lower risk of death within 14 days (no O2, HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57—0.83; low-flow, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.59—0.77) and 28 days (no O2, HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68—0.94; low-flow, HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68—0.86). Additionally, RDV patients on high-flow O2/NIV had a significantly lower risk of death within 14 days (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70—0.93); but not at 28 days (Fig 3).

Fig 1. Study Population

Conclusion

In this large study of patients in clinical care hospitalized with COVID-19, we observed a significant reduction of mortality in RDV vs. non-RDV treated patients in those on no O2 or low-flow O2. Mortality reduction was also seen in patients on high-flow O2 at day 14, but not day 28. These data support the use of RDV early in the course of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Disclosures

Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Aastha Chandak, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Other Financial or Material Support, Employee of Certara (contracted by Gilead to conduct this study)) Zhiji Zhang, MS, Gilead Sciences (Other Financial or Material Support, Employee of Certara (contracted by Gilead to conduct this study)) Shuting Liang, MPH, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Mark Thrun, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Eli Lilly (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Gift in kind to Baylor Scott and White Research Institute for NCT03383419)GSK (Advisor or Review Panel member)Johnson and Johnson (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kinevant (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Roche/Genentech (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD, Abpro (Consultant)Atea (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Decoy (Consultant)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)GSK (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Novartis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Rigel (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Paul Sax, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) David Wohl, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member) Roman Casciano, M.Eng, Gilead Sciences (Other Financial or Material Support, Employee of Certara (contracted by Gilead to conduct this study)) Paul Hodgkins, PhD, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Richard Haubrich, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder)

Economic impact of applying the AASLD-IDSA simplified treatment algorithm on the real-world management of hepatitis C

BACKGROUND: The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommended in May 2019 that patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) could be assessed for treatment initiation with a simplified treatment algorithm. This approach uses standard blood and fibrosis tests, rather than genotype testing, to guide the initiation of pan-genotypic direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for patients who initiated treatment via the simplified vs nonsimplified algorithm (genotype testing). METHODS: We identified adults with commercial and Medicare Advantage coverage who were diagnosed with HCV who initiated SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB from July 1, 2016, through August 31, 2019, in a nationally representative US administrative claims database. The index date was defined as the first pharmacy SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB fill date. Continuous enrollment 12 months before and ≥6 months after index date was required. Patients with claims for hepatitis B, HIV, decompensated liver, or prior DAAs were excluded. Patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) and grouped as "simplified" or "nonsimplified." HCV-related HCRU and costs were compared for the post-matched groups. RESULTS: 3,539 HCV patients were included, and 16.6% initiated SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB via the simplified algorithm. Pre-matched treatments were SOF/VEL (52.8%) and GLE/PIB (47.2%). More than half (55.7%) of SOF/VEL and 44.3% of GLE/PIB patients started treatment via the simplified algorithm. HCV patients initiating via the simplified algorithm were more likely to be male (65.1% vs 60.6%; P = 0.041), commercially insured (53.3% vs 46.5%; P = 0.003), and in the Midwest (25.7% vs 19.3%; P < 0.001) vs nonsimplified patients. The nonsimplified group had more liver disease (52.1% vs 46.9%; P = 0.019), metabolic disorders (45.8% vs 39.2%; P = 0.003), and dyslipidemia (39.9% vs 35.4%; P = 0.041) vs the simplified group. Of the index prescriptions, 58.9% were written by gastroenterology or infectious disease specialists, and 68.1% (simplified) vs 75.4% (nonsimplified) had a specialist visit within 90 days prior to index DAA fill (P < 0.001). Matching resulted in 584 well-matched patients in each group. At post-match baseline, the simplified treatment group had significantly lower median (interquartile range [IQR]) HCV-related medical health care costs vs the matched nonsimplified group: $373 ($201-$684) vs $727 ($456-$1,185; P < 0.001). Median noninpatient/emergency department health plan-paid costs were also significantly lower in the simplified cohort ($257 vs $504; P < 0.001). During follow-up, medical HCV-related health care costs were similar across the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study compared economic outcomes of HCV treatment initiation via the simplified and nonsimplified algorithms. The simplified approach resulted in lower use of health care resources, greater cost savings, and greater ability of patients to access care from both specialist and nonspecialist providers. While additional studies are needed, these early findings suggest a feasible path for simplified HCV treatment in real-world managed care settings. DISCLOSURES: Funding support for this study was provided by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Majethia, Lee, Mozaffari, Wolf, and Hsiao are employees of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Bunner and Chastek are employees of Optum Life Sciences, which received funding from Gilead Sciences, Inc. to conduct this study. Bunner owns stock in UnitedHealth group, parent company of Optum. A poster based on selected data from this study was presented at the AMCP 2021 Virtual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

Remdesivir treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a comparative analysis of in-hospital all-cause mortality in a large multi-center observational cohort

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited.

Methods

We examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between August and November 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges [NSO], low-flow oxygen [LFO], high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], and invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO]) and 2-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3 days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hours, consistent with the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial [ACTT-1] study). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV, and IMV/ECMO.

Results

A total of 28855 RDV patients were matched to 16687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 days (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.70–0.83]) and 28 days (0.89 [0.82–0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO, and IMV/ECMO at 14 days (NSO: 0.69 [0.57–0.83], LFO: 0.68 [0.80–0.77], IMV/ECMO: 0.70 [0.58–0.84]) and 28 days (NSO: 0.80 [0.68–0.94], LFO: 0.77 [0.68–0.86], IMV/ECMO: 0.81 [0.69–0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14 days (0.81 [0.70–0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28 days.

Conclusions

RDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among patients with COVID-19. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

A217 NONINVASIVE ASSESSMENTS TO IDENTIFY PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED FIBROSIS DUE TO NASH: SCREENED POPULATION FROM THE REGENERATE TRIAL

Aims

We explored the ability of noninvasive tests (NITs) to identify patients (pts) with advanced fibrosis due to NASH.

Methods

All screened pts from the ongoing phase 3 REGENERATE with available histology data were included. Five NITs were evaluated using established literature cutoffs to identify or exclude advanced fibrosis (values between upper and lower thresholds were considered indeterminate): Aspartate Transaminase-to-Platelet Ratio Index (APRI; ≥0.57, ≤0.84), Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF; ≥7.7, &lt;9.8), Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4; ≥1.30, &lt;2.67), NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS; ≥−1.455, &lt;0.676), and Transient Elastography (TE; ≥7.9 kPa, &lt;9.6 kPa). Three testing methods applied were single NIT, 2 simultaneous NITs weighted equally (NFS+ELF, FIB-4+ELF, NFS+TE, FIB-4+TE), and 2 sequential NITs with the second test performed only if the first test was indeterminate (NFS→ELF, FIB-4→ELF, NFS→TE, FIB-4→TE).

Results

4133 pts in the REGENERATE screened population had an available biopsy (baseline liver biopsy: F0, 15.5%; F1, 27.2%; F2, 21.2%; F3, 29.6%; F4, 6.5%). Of these, 96% had FIB-4, NFS, and APRI, 41% had TE, and 28% had ELF. Single NITs with upper thresholds demonstrating strong specificity for identification of advanced fibrosis were FIB-4 (97%), NFS (94%), and APRI (86%); NITs with lower thresholds demonstrating good sensitivity for identification of early fibrosis were ELF (100%) and TE (88%). Evaluation of 2 simultaneous NITs resulted in a greater percentage of pts in the indeterminate zone. Application of 2 sequential tests improved the accuracy of identification and reduced misclassification vs 2 simultaneous tests.

Conclusions

Sequential NIT strategies may decrease liver biopsy rates while maintaining the accuracy of noninvasive diagnosis in pts with advanced fibrosis due to NASH.

Funding Agencies

Intercept Pharmaceuticals

Practice patterns and incidence of adenovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: Multicenter survey of transplant centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Adenovirus (AdV) is increasingly recognized as a threat to successful outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Guidelines have been developed to inform AdV screening and treatment practices, but the extent to which they are followed in clinical practice in the United States is still unknown. The incidence of AdV in the United States is also not well documented. The main objectives of the AdVance US study were thus to characterize current AdV screening and treatment practices in the United States and to estimate the incidence of AdV infection in allo-HCT recipients across multiple pediatric and adult transplant centers.

METHODS

Fifteen pediatric centers and 6 adult centers completed a practice patterns survey, and 15 pediatric centers and four adult centers completed an incidence survey.

RESULTS

The practice patterns survey results confirm that pediatric transplant centers are more likely than adult centers to routinely screen for AdV, and are also more likely to have a preemptive AdV treatment approach compared to adult centers. Perceived risk of AdV infection is a determining factor for whether routine screening and preemptive treatment are implemented. Most pediatric centers screen higher-risk patients for AdV weekly, in blood, and have a preemptive AdV treatment approach. The incidence survey results show that from 2015 to 2017, a total of 1230 patients underwent an allo-HCT at the 15 pediatric transplant centers, and 1815 patients underwent an allo-HCT at the 4 adult transplant centers. The incidences of AdV infection, AdV viremia, and AdV viremia ≥ 1000 copies/mL within 6 months after the first allo-HCT were 23%, 16%, and 9%, respectively, for patients at pediatric centers, and 5%, 3%, and 2%, respectively, for patients at adult centers.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide a more recent estimate of the incidence of AdV infection in the United States, as well as a multicenter view of practice patterns around AdV infection screening and intervention criteria, in pediatric and adult allo-HCT recipients.

Current practices in the management of adenovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients in Europe: The AdVance study

Objective

Adenovirus (AdV) infections are potentially life‐threatening for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo‐HCT) recipients. The AdVance study aimed to evaluate the incidence, management, and outcomes of AdV infections in European allo‐HCT recipients.

Methods

As part of the study, physician surveys were conducted to determine current AdV screening and treatment practices at their center.

Results

All of the 28 respondents who treat pediatric patients reported routine AdV screening practices, with 93% screening all allo‐HCT recipients and others screening those with transplant‐related risk factors. Nearly all centers take a pre‐emptive approach to AdV treatment in both high‐ (89%) and low‐risk patients (75%). Among the 14 respondents who treat adult patients, 5 (36%) reported routine screening practices and few (21%) screen all allo‐HCT recipients unless risk factors are present. In adults, pre‐emptive AdV treatment is uncommon and quantitative AdV thresholds are rare. Typical treatment for all patients with symptomatic AdV infection is off‐label intravenous cidofovir.

Conclusions

Our findings confirm that screening for AdV is more common in pediatric patients. Antiviral treatment is employed in both pediatric and adult patients, although adults are generally treated when AdV disease is diagnosed. The approach to AdV screening and treatment is risk‐based and consistent with clinical guidelines.

Incidence of Adenovirus Infection in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients: Findings from the AdVance Study

Adenovirus (AdV) is an increasingly recognized threat to recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT), particularly when infection is prolonged and unresolved. AdVance is the first multinational, multicenter study to evaluate the incidence of AdV infection in both pediatric and adult allo-HCT recipients across European transplantation centers. Medical records for patients undergoing first allo-HCT between January 2013 and September 2015 at 50 participating centers were reviewed. The cumulative incidence of AdV infection (in any sample using any assay) during the 6 months after allo-HCT was 32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.9% to 33.4%) among pediatric allo-HCT recipients (n = 1736) and 6% (95% CI, 4.7% to 6.4%) among adult allo-HCT recipients (n = 2540). The incidence of AdV viremia ≥1000copies/mL (a common threshold for initiation of preemptive treatment) was 14% (95% CI, 13.0% to 14.8%) in pediatric recipients and 1.5% (95% CI, 1.1% to 2.0%) in adult recipients. Baseline risk factors for developing AdV viremia ≥1000copies/mL included younger age, use of T cell depletion, and donor type other than matched related. Baseline demographic factors were broadly comparable across patients of all ages and identified by multivariate analyses. Notably, the incidence of AdV infection decreased stepwise with increasing age; younger adults (age 18 to 34 years) had a similar incidence as older pediatric patients (<18 years). This study provides a contemporary multicenter understanding of the incidence and risk factors for AdV infection following allo-HCT. Our findings may help optimize infection screening and intervention criteria, particularly for younger at-risk adults.

1732. Adenovirus Load Dynamics Are Consistently Correlated With Risk of Mortality in Pediatric Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients: Findings From the Landmark AdVance Study

Background

Adenovirus (AdV) infection is an important cause of mortality among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients. Current European Conference of Infections in Leukemia (ECIL-4) guidelines support weekly AdV screening for those at-risk and pre-emptive antiviral treatment with off-label cidofovir when adenoviremia is detected. However, there is limited understanding of the relative prognostic strength of different dynamic AdV viral load measures. We examined the association between adenovirus viral load dynamics and mortality in pediatric allo-HCT recipients managed under the current standard of care.

Methods

AdVance was a multinational, multicenter study characterizing the current screening and treatment practices for AdV infection in allo-HCT recipients between January 2013 and September 2015. This analysis focused on pediatric (<18 years) patients who experienced AdV viremia ≥1,000 copies/mL within 6 months of HCT. Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard models, controlling for factors including immune reconstitution, were used to examine the relationship between AdV viral load dynamics (Figure 1) and all-cause mortality in the 6 months after first AdV viremia ≥1,000 copies/mL.

Results

A total of 241 pediatric allo-HCT recipients had AdV viremia ≥1,000 copies/mL in the 6 months following allo-HCT. Among these, 43/241 (18%) died within 6 months of first AdV ≥1,000 copies/mL. AdV viral load dynamics; whether measured by AdV AAUC_0–16, peak viremia, 2-week change in viremia, or days of viremia >1,000 copies/mL, were consistently correlated with all-cause mortality (Figure 2; hazard ratio [HR] range: 1.3–2.3). Most notably, patients with AdV AAUC_0–16 in the highest quartile had an HR of 11.6 relative to those in the lowest (confidence interval: 4.7–24.0; Figure 3).

Conclusion

AdV infection is a significant risk for allo-HCT recipients. The AdVance study has identified several dynamic measures of AdV viral load that correlate with the risk of mortality in pediatric allo-HCT recipients. Results show for the first time, that AdV AAUC_0–16 provides the optimal correlation with mortality in this population and serves as a clinically useful indicator of outcome in patients with AdV infection.

Disclosures

F. Galaverna, Chimerix, Inc.: Investigator, Research support. R. Wynn, Chimerix, Inc.: Scientific Advisor, Grant recipient and Speaker honorarium. Orchard Therapeutics: Scientific Advisor and Shareholder, Consulting fee and Licensing agreement or royalty. Genzyme: Scientific Advisor, Speaker honorarium. P. Comoli, Chimerix, Inc.: Investigator, Research support. A. Chandak, Chimerix, Inc.: Research Contractor, Research support. Analytica Laser: Employee, Salary. E. Vainorius, Chimerix, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. T. Brundage, Chimerix, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. E. Mozaffari, Chimerix, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. G. Nichols, Chimerix, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Therapy for Patients Undergoing Total Knee Replacement Surgery: Cost and Outcomes

Objective:

In March 1997, a community hospital system changed the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) product on formulary from enoxaparin to dalteparin through a therapeutic interchange for all uses except patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. In October 1997, therapeutic interchange of LMWHs (enoxaparin to dalteparin) was instituted for patients undergoing TKR surgery. The cost equivalence of these therapies in TKR surgery was evaluated.

Methods:

A cohort of patients admitted to three health-system facilities who underwent primary TKR surgery between July 1, 1996 and December 31, 1998 was assembled retrospectively. Costs and outcomes associated with a formulary interchange for LMWH products (from enoxaparin to dalteparin) initiated in October 1997 for TKR surgery were analyzed using data abstracted hospital records and decision support systems. To evaluate equivalence between the drugs, the difference in median inpatient health care costs (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated. Equivalence of outcomes (eg, adverse events) in terms of risk ratios was also evaluated.

Results:

Inpatient costs were essentially equivalent for patients treated with enoxaparin (n = 88) and dalteparin (n = 101), with a slightly higher median cost among enoxaparin-treated patients ($172 [95% CI, -$17 to + $395]). CIs for the crude and regression-adjusted findings included the possibility of no cost difference (ie, $0). The median time to hospital discharge was identical, at 6 days. Outcomes were otherwise similar between the two groups.

Conclusions:

Our therapeutic interchange program was successful. Inpatient costs were equivalent when patients were treated with either enoxaparin or dalteparin for TKR surgery.

Comparative effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs on cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality in atrial fibrillation

AIM

To assess, through a systematic review, evidence for the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) on cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and mortality.

MATERIALS & METHODS

English language articles were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry and were screened for study applicability and methodological quality.

RESULTS

Out of 3526 identified studies, 38 were selected for analysis (19 evaluated individual AADs, 13 compared rate- versus rhythm-control strategies, and 6 evaluated multiple AADs but did not report outcomes for individual agents). None of the studies examining individual AADs employed the CV hospitalization end point used in ATHENA (the reference trial). There were no head-to-head comparisons of individual AADs on CV hospitalization. Most high-quality studies used multidrug rate- versus rhythm-control strategies.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of the comparative effectiveness of individual AADs on CV hospitalization and mortality end points is not possible with the current evidence.

Treating people right: Who goes untreated with systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC)?

125

Background: We investigated the use of systemic therapies (androgen deprivation therapy and chemotherapy) for men with mPC in the community, comparing those treated and untreated.

Methods: 8,295 men diagnosed with mPC at presentation from the 2000-05 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were linked to Medicare claims. We excluded those diagnosed with other primary malignancies, disenrolling from Medicare Parts A or B (n=3,293), or who died within 1 month of diagnosis (n=468), leaving 4,534 patients. Treatment, service use and comorbidities were measured in Medicare claims, demographic and clinical data in SEER. We compared characteristics of patients by treatment group using univariate and logistic regression to estimate the predicted probability of receiving systemic therapies for black and nonblack patients. Differences across hospital service areas (HSAs) were computed, using logistic regression to adjust for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results: 3,657 patients (80.7%) received systemic therapy and 877 (19.3%) did not. Mean time to systemic treatment was 2.5 months. Follow up was 28.8 months for the treated, 19.2 months for the untreated. Among the treated, 20.4% received ADT and chemotherapy, 78.3% ADT only and 1.3% chemo only. Untreated patients were statistically older (78.6 versus 77.3 years), less likely to be married (48% versus 61%), and more likely residents of lower income areas and black race (26% versus 13%). The two groups scored similarly on a comorbidity index (0.51 versus 0.43). The model predicted a 66% probability of receiving systemic treatment for blacks versus 82% for whites, controlling for other factors. Systemic treatment use varied across regions from 62% to 94%. There was an 8-14% greater likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for men living in above versus below median regions.

Conclusions: One in 5 men with mPC in this sample survived long enough to be treated systemically, yet was not. Untreated men with mPC are more likely to be black, unmarried and reside in low income areas, raising concerns for equal access to treatment. Some regions are better at initiating systemic treatment for men with mPC than others.

Time to ADT and chemotherapy initiation for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC)

41

Background: ADT and chemotherapy use in men with mPC may differ across regions in community practice. The extent of variation could indicate whether men with mPC have appropriate access to effective treatments.

Methods: We identified 16,024 men diagnosed with mPC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2000-2005 linked to their Medicare claims. Patients were excluded if they had a second cancer or disenrolled from Medicare Parts A or B (n=6,155), or failed to initiate therapy with ADT (n=3,400). We identified demographic and clinical information from SEER and treatments and comorbidities from J-codes and ICD-9 codes in the Medicare claims. We used regression models to estimate the probability of advancement to chemotherapy, the time from diagnosis to first ADT use, and time from first ADT to chemotherapy. Then the patient-level predicted results from these models were used to generate summary statistics by hospital service area (HSA).

Results: There were 6,469 patients remaining after exclusion who were treated with ADT, and 1,198 of those received chemotherapy (19%). The median age was 76 years old, most were white (77%), married (62%), and 50% had 1 other major comorbidity (most frequent was diabetes, 21%). Men who were younger, married, with fewer comorbidities, and higher Gleason scores were statistically more likely to both receive chemotherapy and use it earlier. After adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors, the average time to ADT by referral region was 2.7 months but varied from 1.3 to 5.6; probability of progression to chemotherapy averaged 19% but varied from 6% to 30%, and the time from first ADT to chemotherapy averaged 19.7 months but varied from 12.9 to 25.7 months. The difference in time to ADT between regions in the 10th and 90th percentiles of use was 2.6 months, whereas for chemotherapy initiation, it was 12.4 months.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that living in different parts of the country has a substantial impact on how clinically similar patients are treated. There was substantial variation across regions in use of and time to initiation of chemotherapy for men with mPC, but not in ADT use.

Effect of early clopidogrel discontinuation on rehospitalization in acute coronary syndrome: results from two distinct patient populations

PURPOSE

Results of a study of the association between early discontinuation of clopidogrel therapy and rehospitalization rates among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are reported.

SUMMARY

In a retrospective observational study, analyses of two nationally representative cohorts of adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or coronary stent insertion were conducted to assess risk factors for ACS-related adverse outcomes (rehospitalization for AMI or coronary revascularization) during the 12 months after completion of an initial 28-day course of clopidogrel therapy. Case data were sourced from a commercial insurance claims database, a pharmacy administrative claims database, and a combined dataset that linked hospital discharge and outpatient service data; a time-varying method was used to differentiate adverse events occurring "on" and "off" clopidogrel therapy. One cohort analysis (n = 42,757) indicated that patients who discontinued clopidogrel early (i.e., within 12 months of index discharge) were at significantly increased risk for ACS-related rehospitalization during the 12-month study period (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.20; p < 0.05). In the other cohort analysis (n = 3,171), early clopidogrel discontinuation was associated with an increased risk of rehospitalization or inpatient death (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.59-1.91; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Observational evidence from analyses of data on two large cohorts of patients with primarily employer-sponsored health insurance suggests that early discontinuation of clopidogrel therapy after hospitalization for AMI or coronary stent insertion is associated with a significant increase in the risk of ACS-related rehospitalization within the 12-month postdischarge period.

Pharmacy cost sharing, antiplatelet therapy utilization, and health outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To examine how cost sharing for prescription drugs affects compliance with antiplatelet therapy and subsequent health outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective outcomes study using administrative data from medical and pharmaceutical claims of patients enrolled at health plans offered by 26 large employers drawn from all regions of the country.

METHODS

A total of 14,325 patients were diagnosed as having ACS and underwent coronary stent implantation between 2002 and 2005. Each patient was followed up for a maximum of 2 years. Primary outcomes measures were adoption of outpatient antiplatelet therapy, adherence to outpatient therapy, hospital admissions, and healthcare expenditures.

RESULTS

Patients with ACS who face higher coinsurance are less likely to adopt outpatient antiplatelet therapy within the first month after stent implantation and are more likely to discontinue treatment in the first year after stent implantation (P <.01). Higher coinsurance is also associated with an increased number of ACS rehospitalizations (P <.01). For patients in health plans with higher coinsurance rates, expected costs from ACS hospitalizations are $2796 (38%) higher in the first year after stent implantation (P <.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher copayments for prescription drugs are associated with lower utilization of antiplatelet therapy and with higher likelihood of rehospitalization among patients with ACS. As a consequence, total healthcare spending for patients with ACS increases by approximately $615 in the first year after stent implantation.

Economic consequences of ACS-related rehospitalizations in the US

OBJECTIVE

To examine economic consequences related to rehospitalization following initial acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment in United States managed care settings.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Retrospective observational studies were conducted on two managed care populations to examine medical encounter insurance claims and charges for ACS-related rehospitalizations following an index hospitalization for new onset ACS (2002-2007). All charges were adjusted to year 2007 United States Dollars (USDs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes for this study were the direct charges related to ACS rehospitalizations as captured in two separate medical encounter claims databases.

RESULTS

Of the 11,266 ACS patients identified for analysis in the health system plan, 3588 (32%) had at least one ACS rehospitalization. Of the 97,177 ACS patients enrolled in the nationally representative managed care database, 32,578 (34%) had at least one ACS-related rehospitalization. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) was the strongest predictor of increased charges during the recurrence in both populations (p < 0.0001). When controlling for length of stay (LOS) in the model, CABG remained a significant predictor of increased charges, while percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and stent insertion became even stronger predictors of increased charges.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs associated with ACS-related rehospitalizations in a real-world setting are high, even when controlling for known cost drivers such as length of stay.

Clinical impact of early clopidogrel discontinuation following acute myocardial infarction hospitalization or stent implantation: analysis in a nationally representative managed-care population

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association between discontinuation of clopidogrel therapy and risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization or cardiac revascularization in a nationally-representative patient population following hospitalization for an AMI or coronary stent insertion.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This observational cohort study was performed using data on patients from the PharMetrics Anonymous Patient-Centric Database who were hospitalized for an AMI or coronary stent insertion and subsequently treated with clopidogrel. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to evaluate the association between clopidogrel discontinuation prior to 1 year post-initial AMI hospitalization and the primary endpoint of repeat AMI hospitalization or coronary intervention defined as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without stent, or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome for this study was AMI hospitalization or coronary intervention defined as PCI with or without stent placement or CABG.

RESULTS

A total of 31 835 patients were included in the analyses. Patients were predominantly male and the average patient age was approximately 60 years. After controlling for baseline patient characteristics and follow-up time, discontinuation of clopidogrel was associated with a significantly higher rate of hospitalization for AMI or coronary intervention (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22-1.44).

CONCLUSION

Within a population of ACS patients drawn from a database of 85 US health plans, clopidogrel discontinuation within 1 year following hospitalization for AMI or stent placement is associated with an increased risk of AMI hospitalization or coronary intervention. The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of observational research, which does not address cause and effect relationships.

Clinical impact of early clopidogrel discontinuation following acute myocardial infarction hospitalization or stent implantation: analysis in a single integrated health network

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between the discontinuation of clopidogrel therapy prior to 1 year and the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization, coronary intervention or all-cause mortality in a cohort of managed-care patients following AMI hospitalization or stent insertion.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This observational cohort study included 1152 patients enrolled in the Health Alliance Plan who were hospitalized for AMI, or who underwent coronary stent placement. Clopidogrel use was assessed using pharmacy claims data. The association between discontinuation of clopidogrel prior to 1 year following the initial ACS event and the primary outcome of AMI hospitalization/procedure was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Additionally, an analysis was conducted to determine the association of discontinuation prior to 1 year with a secondary composite outcome of AMI hospitalization/coronary stent procedure or all-cause mortality.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was AMI hospitalization or procedure. The secondary outcome was a composite of AMI hospitalization/ procedure, or all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Discontinuation of clopidogrel in the total cohort of patients was associated with a significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of AMI hospitalization/ coronary intervention (HR 2.712, 95% CI 1.634-4.502). Consistent with this finding, discontinuation of clopidogrel was also associated with a significantly higher risk of the secondary composite endpoint (HR 1.844, 95% CI 1.281-2.653).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients enrolled in an integrated health network, clopidogrel discontinuation prior to 1 year following AMI hospitalization or stent placement is associated with adverse outcomes including greater risk of death, AMI hospitalization or coronary intervention. These results should be interpreted within the context and limitations of observational research, which cannot attribute causality.

Drug treatment discontinuation and achievement of target blood pressure and cholesterol in United Kingdom primary care

AIM

This cohort study evaluated medication discontinuation and target achievement in a United Kingdom primary care setting.

METHODS

The study population comprised patients within the General Practice Research Database who began treatment for hypertension, dyslipidaemia or both between 1997 and 2001. Discontinuation (absence of prescription refill > or = 6 months) and reaching treatment targets (blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg, or < 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes; total cholesterol < 193 mg/dL [5 mmol/L] or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 116 mg/dL [3 mmol/L]) were determined for patients treated for hypertension alone (cohort HT), dyslipidaemia alone (cohort DYS) and both conditions (cohort HT+DYS).

RESULTS

At 2 years, 41.3% (95% CI: 40.8, 41.9%) of patients had stopped treatment in cohort HT, 29.2% (27.6, 30.9%) in cohort DYS and 25.0% (24.3, 25.8%) stopped either treatment in cohort HT+DYS. The cumulative proportion reaching treatment targets at this time was 28.2% (27.8, 28.7%) in cohort HT and 49.9% (47.8, 51.9%) in cohort DYS; in cohort HT+DYS, 43.4% (42.6, 44.2%) achieved blood pressure target, 53.7% (52.8, 54.6%) cholesterol target and 24.8% (24.0, 25.5%) reached target for both. Diabetic patients generally stayed on treatment longer and were less likely to attain their blood pressure targets, and more likely to reach cholesterol targets, compared with all patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients prescribed both antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy remained on treatment longer; more patients achieved treatment target than those treated for single risk factors. Nevertheless, there is a large unmet need for initiating and maintaining antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy in patients with hypertension and dyslipidaemia.

Treatment patterns of hypertension and dyslipidaemia in hypertensive patients at higher and lower risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care in the United Kingdom

Few studies have investigated the presence of dyslipidaemia in hypertensive individuals. In addition, few data exist on the concurrent treatment of both conditions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This retrospective cohort study examined treatment patterns for hypertension and dyslipidaemia among hypertensive patients in UK primary care. We defined a population of patients aged > or =40 years from the UK General Practice Research Database. Hypertensive individuals with > or =3 additional cardiovascular risk factors (ARFs) were compared with a cohort comprising hypertensive patients with < or =2 ARFs. We analysed the prevalence of risk factors and the prevalence and incidence of treatment for hypertension, dyslipidaemia and for both conditions between January 1997 and December 2001. A total of 117 840 hypertensive patients were identified (23 655 with > or =3 ARFs, 94 185 with < or =2 ARFs) in 1997; in 2001, the number diagnosed as hypertensive was 133 683 (40 248 > or =3 ARFs, 93 435 < or =2 ARFs). The prevalence of antihypertensive treatment in the hypertensive patients with > or =3 ARFs increased during the study. In 2001, approximately one-third of hypertensive patients with > or =3 ARFs were not receiving antihypertensives. Among those patients who received such treatment, the majority received > or =2 separate agents in accordance with current guidelines. Treatment for concurrent hypertension and dyslipidaemia was initiated in <8% of patients with hypertension and > or =3 ARFs in each year. These findings demonstrate the under-recognition/undertreatment of cardiovascular risk factors in UK primary care among patients at risk of CVD.

Persistence and adherence with topical glaucoma therapy

PURPOSE

The present study describes the patterns and predictors of treatment persistence and adherence among patients who are diagnosed with glaucoma or as glaucoma suspects (based on claims codes).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study using health insurance claims data.

METHODS

Newly treated individuals with diagnosed glaucoma (n = 3623) and suspect glaucoma (n = 1677) were obtained from healthcare claims data in the Ingenix Research Database. For each of these two diagnostic groups, we calculated the duration of continuous treatment with the initially prescribed medication (persistence) and the prevalence of use of the initial medication at various time points (adherence). Four drug classes were included: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and prostaglandin analogs.

RESULTS

Nearly one half of the individuals who had filled a glaucoma prescription discontinued all topical ocular hypotensive therapy within six months, and just 37% of these individuals recently had refilled their initial medication at three years after the first dispensing. Prostaglandins were associated with better persistence than any other drug class, which was indicated by hazard ratios for discontinuation of prostaglandins compared with beta-blockers of 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.44) for diagnosed patients and 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.52) for patients with suspect glaucoma. Prostaglandins showed a similar advantage in adherence. Furthermore, patients with diagnosed glaucoma were more likely to adhere to therapy than patients with suspect glaucoma (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.18).

CONCLUSION

Persistence and adherence were substantially better with prostaglandins than with other drug classes, and patients with diagnosed open-angle glaucoma were more likely to adhere to treatment than suspected glaucoma.

Variations in treatment among adult-onset open-angle glaucoma patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of treatment for glaucoma and suspect glaucoma in a nationally representative sample of diagnosed persons.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of persons enrolled in a large managed care organization.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-five thousand seven hundred fifty-four diagnosed suspects, 5265 diagnosed glaucoma persons, and 2633 individuals coded as having cupping of the optic disc.

METHODS

Linked pharmacy and patient care information were used to examine the predictors of initiating glaucoma treatment in this cohort of persons insured by a single managed care organization. Predictors entered into logistic regression models included diagnostic group (suspect vs. diagnosed), age group, gender, region of the country, provider type at the initial visit (optometrist or ophthalmologist), diagnosis index date divided into 2 periods (1995-1998 and 1999-2001), and health plan enrollment duration after the initial diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Occurrence of and factors associated with treatment for glaucoma (argon laser trabeculoplasty [ALT], surgery, or topical ocular hypotensives).

RESULTS

A logistic regression model adjusting for glaucoma status, age, region, clinician seen at initial visit, and index date found that women were less likely to undergo treatment (topical ocular hypotensives, ALT, or surgery) than men (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.80). Factors other than gender that were associated with greater likelihood of treatment were glaucoma diagnosis, older age, region, and longer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We have documented wide variation in treatment among individuals diagnosed as having glaucoma or as glaucoma suspects. Women were 24% less likely to be treated than men, and younger individuals were far less likely to be treated than older ones. Furthermore, treatment varied by region of the country. Understanding the sources of these variations will help in determining how to arrive at better management strategies for individuals with glaucoma and suspect glaucoma.

Glaucoma Management among Individuals Enrolled in a Single Comprehensive Insurance Plan

OBJECTIVE

To determine the management patterns for glaucoma and suspect glaucoma in a nationally representative sample of newly treated persons.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of persons enrolled in a large managed care organization.

PARTICIPANTS

One thousand seven hundred twelve diagnosed suspects and 3623 diagnosed glaucoma patients.

METHODS

Linked pharmacy and patient care data were used to examine the glaucoma management and treatment patterns in this cohort of persons insured by a single managed care organization. Rates of monitoring and treatment were calculated for the 3 study groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Probability of monitoring (return visits, visual fields [VFs], and optic nerve head imaging or photography) and treatment (argon laser trabeculoplasty [ALT] and surgery) for newly treated persons with suspect and glaucoma diagnoses.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 440 days, 83% of treated diagnosed suspects had had a billed follow-up office visit to either an optometrist or an ophthalmologist at any time during follow-up, 46% had had at least one billed VF, and 13% had had some form of optic nerve head imaging. Rates were slightly higher for those with diagnosed glaucoma (P>0.05). Surgery and ALT were performed rarely in this treated population (1%-6% at 2 years).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that a large proportion of individuals felt to require treatment for glaucoma or suspect glaucoma are falling out of care and are being monitored at rates lower than expected from recommendations of published guidelines. More research is needed to confirm these findings and to determine the reasons for loss to follow-up and low monitoring rates.

Management of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia in primary care in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Screening, treatment and monitoring guidelines for hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia have been developed to assist physicians in providing evidence-based health care. We conducted a retrospective study to assess the management of patients with these single or combined conditions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using data from the Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) project based in The Netherlands. Management of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia was assessed from 2000-2003 by measuring the numbers of patients screened for these conditions, treated pharmacologically and monitored for treatment success.

RESULTS

Approximately 11%, 3% and 10% of participants were eligible for screening for hypertension alone, hypercholesterolaemia alone and both conditions, respectively. Blood pressure screening was high in patients eligible for both blood pressure and cholesterol screening (> 86%), whereas cholesterol screening was low (< 56%). Among patients newly identified with hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia who were eligible for pharmacotherapy, 29% and 43% respectively were not treated within one year of diagnosis. Undertreatment was significantly lower in patients with both conditions (24% and 37% for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment, respectively and 28% were not treated for both). Among newly treated patients, in the first year of treatment there was no record of a blood pressure or cholesterol assessment, for 35% and 72%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Management was sub-optimal in patients with hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia as well as in those with both of these conditions. The results of this study are likely to be widely applicable, particularly to other European and industrialised countries that have similar free-access health care systems to The Netherlands.

Reference group choice and antibiotic resistance outcomes

Two types of cohort studies examining patients infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were contrasted, using different reference groups. Cases were compared to uninfected patients and patients infected with the corresponding, susceptible organism. VRE and MRSA were associated with adverse outcomes. The effect was greater when uninfected control patients were used.

An economic evaluation of a European cohort from a multinational trial of linezolid versus teicoplanin in serious Gram-positive bacterial infections: the importance of treatment setting in evaluating treatment effects

In a recent multinational trial, hospital resource use and total cost of treatment were compared between linezolid and teicoplanin for severe Gram-positive bacterial infections among 227 European hospitalised patients. The results show that the linezolid group had a 3.2-day (6.3 for linezolid versus 9.5 for teicoplanin groups) shorter mean intravenous antibiotic treatment duration. Certain baseline variables, particularly the inpatient location at enrolment and the presence of outpatient/home parenteral antibiotic therapy (OHPAT), had substantial effects on length of stay (LOS) and cost of treatment. After adjusting for the between-treatment difference in these two variables and other baseline variables, the results showed non-significant shorter LOS and lower mean total cost of treatment for the linezolid group among patients with no access to OHPAT.

Observed time between prescription refills for newer ocular hypotensive agents: the effect of bottle size

PURPOSE

To describe prescription refill patterns of ocular hypotensive therapies and to measure differences among refill rates across bottle sizes.

DESIGN

Retrospective, population-based, cohort study.

METHODS

This study included patients dispensed bimatoprost, brimonidine, dorzolamide/timolol, latanoprost, timolol gel (XE) 0.5%, or travoprost between January 1, 1996, and March 30, 2002. The initial fill date was identified for the cohort-defining ocular hypotensive, and the number of days between each subsequent refill was calculated. The analysis was repeated in patients with at least four refills to evaluate potential bias. Descriptive and survival analyses evaluated differences in refill rates across bottle sizes.

RESULTS

In the 27,387 patients contributing up to four evaluable refill sequences, the amount of drug contained in bottles did not predict the number of days between fills. Patients dispensed larger bottles typically refilled sooner than drop-count studies would predict; results for patients with at least four refills (n = 12,976) confirmed these findings. Survival analysis demonstrated that the bottle size trend held across classes of therapy. Compared with 5.0-ml bottles, patients dispensed 10.0-ml and 15.0-ml bottles returned for refills at approximately 1.5 times the expected rate. When average wholesale prices were applied to refill intervals for selected agents, a 45% excess cost per month was found for the larger bottle sizes (10.0 ml vs 5.0 ml or 5.0 ml vs 2.5 ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Expected refill patterns predicted by bottle size and mean number of drops do not reflect observed refill patterns. Patients dispensed larger bottle sizes return for refills much sooner than expected, regardless of the class of therapy.

Patient persistency with topical ocular hypotensive therapy in a managed care population

PURPOSE

To evaluate persistency with topical ocular hypotensive therapies in patients new to pharmacological management of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP).

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study; Protocare Sciences managed care database; approximately 3 million members in commercial health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations and in Medicare risk plans.

METHODS

Patients were at least 20 years of age initiating therapy between July 1, 1996, and June 30, 2002, with betaxolol, bimatoprost, brimonidine, dorzolamide, latanoprost, timolol, or travoprost as monotherapy. Patients must have been continuously enrolled and not have received glaucoma surgery in the 180 days before the index prescription fill. Prescription refill records for all ocular hypotensive drugs were extracted through June 30, 2002. Outcome measures were (1) discontinuation of index drug, and (2) either discontinuation or change in index drug. Changing therapy was defined as switching to or adding another ocular hypotensive. Rates of discontinuation and discontinuation/change were compared using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In all, 28,741 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with latanoprost, those treated with other drugs were from 37% (timolol) to 72% (bimatoprost) more likely to discontinue and from 20% (timolol) to 58% (dorzolamide) more likely to discontinue/change therapy (P <.001 for all comparisons). At 12 months, 33% of patients treated with latanoprost and 19% of those receiving other ocular hypotensives had not discontinued therapy; 23% and 13%, respectively, had not discontinued or changed therapy. Compared with latanoprost, significantly higher percentages of patients treated with each alternate agent had only one fill of their index drugs (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although persistency rates were low across agents, latanoprost-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater persistency than did those treated with other topical ocular hypotensive therapies.

Persistency with latanoprost or timolol in primary open-angle glaucoma suspects

PURPOSE

To evaluate persistency of pharmacotherapy in primary open-angle glaucoma suspects (glaucoma suspects) treated with latanoprost and timolol.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study using the Protocare Sciences managed care database; approximately 3 million members in commercial health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations and in Medicare risk plans.

METHODS

Patients 20 years of age or older beginning therapy between January 1, 1997, and June 30, 2002, with latanoprost or timolol monotherapy were included. Patients must have been continuously enrolled and not undergone glaucoma surgery in the year preceding the index prescription fill and had glaucoma suspect diagnoses before and after the index date. Prescription refill records for all ocular hypotensives were extracted through June 30, 2002. The two outcome measures were (1) discontinuation of index drug, and (2) either discontinuation or change in index drug. Changing therapy was defined as switching to or adding another ocular hypotensive. Rates of discontinuation and discontinuation/change were compared using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In all, 1,474 patients met the inclusion criteria. Latanoprost was prescribed for 583 patients (40%) and timolol for 891 (60%). Compared with latanoprost, those treated with timolol were 39% more likely to discontinue and 27% more likely to discontinue/change therapy (P <.001 for both comparisons). At 12 months, 39% of patients receiving latanoprost and 25% of those treated with timolol had not discontinued therapy; no discontinuation or change in therapy was seen in 30% and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Latanoprost-treated glaucoma suspects demonstrated significantly greater persistency than did patients treated with timolol. The reasons for this difference and its impact on intraocular pressure control and disease progression require further research.

A new measure of patient satisfaction with ocular hypotensive medications: the Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intraocular Pressure (TSS-IOP)

Purpose

To validate the treatment-specific Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intraocular Pressure (TSS-IOP).

Methods

Item content was developed by 4 heterogeneous patient focus groups (n = 32). Instrument validation involved 250 patients on ocular hypotensive medications recruited from ophthalmology practices in the Southern USA. Participants responded to demographic and test questions during a clinic visit. Standard psychometric analyses were performed on the resulting data.

Sample

Of the 412 patients screened, 253 consented to participate, and 250 provided complete datasets. The sample included 44% male (n = 109), 44% Black (n = 109) and 57% brown eyed (n = 142) participants, with a mean age of 64.6 years (SD 13.1) and a history of elevated IOP for an average of 8.4 yrs (SD 7.8). A majority was receiving monotherapy (60%, n = 151).

Results

A PC Factor analysis (w/ varimax rotation) of the 31 items yielded 5 factors (Eigenvalues > 1.0) explaining 70% of the total variance. Weaker and conceptually redundant items were removed and the remaining 15 items reanalyzed. The satisfaction factors were; Eye Irritation (EI; 4 items), Convenience of Use (CofU; 3 items), Ease of Use (EofU; 3 items), Hyperemia (HYP; 3 items), and Medication Effectiveness (EFF; 2 items). Chronbach's Alphas ranged from .80 to .86. Greater distributional skew was found for less common experiences (i.e., HYP & EI with 65% & 48.4% ceilings) than for more common experiences (i.e., EofU, CofU, EFF with 10.8%, 20.8% & 15.9% ceilings). TSS-IOP scales converged with conceptually related scales on a previously validated measure of treatment satisfaction, the TSQM (r = .36 to .77). Evidence of concurrent criterion-related validity was found. Patients' symptomatic ratings of eye irritation, hyperemia and difficulties using the medication correlated with satisfaction on these dimensions (r = .30-.56, all p < .001). Clinicians' ratings of IOP control, severity of side effects and problematic medication use correlated with patients' satisfaction scores on these dimensions (r = .13-.26, all p < .01).

Conclusions

This study provides initial evidence that the TSS-IOP is a reliable and valid measure, assessing patients' satisfaction with ocular hypotensive medications.