IntroductionClinical trials have shown that liraglutide effectively lowers glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, no studies have evaluated the effectiveness of liraglutide by body mass index (BMI) in the United States (US) in clinical practice. This study examined liraglutide’s clinical effectiveness to lower A1C and body weight after 6 months in T2D patients stratified by baseline BMI.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using the General Electric Centricity electronic medical records database. Adult patients with T2D (≥18 years and BMI≥ 25 kg/m2) and A1C >7% at baseline who started liraglutide between January 1, 2010 and January 31, 2013 and who did not use insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 analog 12 months before initiating liraglutide (N = 3,005) were selected. Changes from baseline, stratified by BMI, in A1C, body weight, A1C <7% goal attainment, and incidence of severe hypoglycemia at 6-month follow-up were examined.ResultsAfter 6 months, A1C levels decreased on average by 0.95%, 1.02%, 0.99%, and 0.84% for BMI categories 25.0–29.9 (n = 333), 30.0–34.9 (n = 793), 35.0–39.9 (n = 821), and ≥40.0 kg/m2 (n = 1,058), respectively (P = 0.30). The proportions of patients achieving A1C <7% at 6 months were 38.2%, 37.0%, 40.9%, and 41.0% (P = 0.54). The absolute body weight decreased by 1.5 to 4.0 kg across BMI and the rate of severe hypoglycemia (0.2%) was low.ConclusionPatients with T2D experienced statistically significant decreases in A1C and body weight after initiating liraglutide regardless of their BMI. Liraglutide reduced A1C equally well across baseline BMI in clinical practice in the US.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0153-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of liraglutide with sitagliptin and assess the associated economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated in real-world practice in the United States (US).MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used a large US claims database to identify patients with T2DM who initiated liraglutide or sitagliptin between January 2010 and December 2012. Adults (≥18 years old) with persistent use of therapy for ≥3 months were included. Changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and the proportion of patients achieving A1C targets (≤6.5% and <7%) were examined at 6-month follow-up. Diabetes-related total, medical, and pharmacy costs over the follow-up period were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate the outcomes associated with liraglutide relative to sitagliptin, adjusting for differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe study included 1,465 patients with T2DM who initiated liraglutide (N = 376) or sitagliptin (N = 1,089) (mean age [standard deviation (SD)]: 54 [8.9] vs. 58 [10.8] years; 43.9% vs. 61.8% males; both P < 0.01). After controlling for confounding factors, liraglutide patients experienced 0.31% points greater reduction in A1C (0.95% vs. 0.63% points; P < 0.01) at 6-month follow-up than sitagliptin patients and were more likely to reach A1C targets of ≤6.5% (odds ratio [OR]: 2.00; P < 0.01) and <7% (OR: 1.55; P < 0.01). Liraglutide patients had $994 lower mean diabetes-related medical costs ($1,241 vs. $2,235; P < 0.01), but $544 higher diabetes-related pharmacy costs ($2,100 vs. $1,556; P < 0.01) during the follow-up. No difference was found in the total mean diabetes-related costs between the two cohorts.ConclusionLiraglutide showed greater improvement in glycemic outcomes than sitagliptin among adult patients with T2DM in real-world clinical practice. Although diabetes-related pharmacy costs for patients using liraglutide were higher compared with sitagliptin, these were offset by significantly lower diabetes-related medical costs, resulting in similar total diabetes-related costs between the two treatment groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-014-0084-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgical procedures place substantial burden on health care systems because of the high complication risk, of surgical site infections in particular. The risk of surgical site infection after colorectal surgery is one of the highest of any surgical specialty. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, cost of infections after colorectal surgery, and potential economic benefit of using antimicrobial wound closure to improve patient outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort analysis and probabilistic cost analysis were performed. SETTINGS: The analysis utilized a database for colorectal patients in the United States between 2014 and 2018. PATIENTS: A total of 107,665 patients who underwent colorectal surgery were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of infection was together with identified between 3 and 180 days postoperatively, infection risk factors, infection costs over 24 months postoperatively by payer type (commercial payers and Medicare), and potential costs avoided per patient by using an evidence-based innovative wound closure technology. RESULTS: Surgical site infections were diagnosed postoperatively in 23.9% of patients (4.0% superficial incisional and 19.9% deep incisional/organ space). Risk factors significantly increased risk of deep incisional/organ-space infection and included several patient comorbidities, age, payer type, and admission type. After 12 months, adjusted increased costs associated with infections ranged from $36,429 to $144,809 for commercial payers and $17,551 to $102,280 for Medicare, depending on surgical site infection type. Adjusted incremental costs continued to increase over a 24-month study period for both payers. Use of antimicrobial wound closure for colorectal surgery is projected to significantly reduce median payer costs by $809 to $1170 per patient compared with traditional wound closure. LIMITATIONS: The inherent biases associated with retrospective databases limited this study. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical site infection cost burden was found to be higher than previously reported, with payer costs escalating over a 24-month postoperative period. Cost analysis results for adopting antimicrobial wound closure aligns with previous evidence-based studies, suggesting a fiscal benefit for its use as a component of a comprehensive evidence-based surgical care bundle for reducing the risk of infection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B358. EVALUACIÓN DEL RIESGO Y LA CARGA ECONÓMICA DE LA INFECCIÓN DEL SITIO QUIRÚRGICO DESPUÉS DE UNA CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL UTILIZANDO UNA BASE DE DATOS LONGITUDINAL DE EE.UU.: ¿EXISTE UN PAPEL PARA LA TECNOLOGÍA INNOVADORA DE CIERRE DE HERIDAS ANTIMICROBIANAS PARA REDUCIR EL RIESGO DE INFECCIÓN? ANTECEDENTES: Los procedimientos quirúrgicos colorrectales suponen una carga considerable para los sistemas de salud debido al alto riesgo de complicaciones, particularmente las infecciones del sitio quirúrgico. El riesgo de infección posoperatoria del sitio quirúrgico colorrectal es uno de los más altos de cualquier especialidad quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: El propósito de este estudio fue determinar la incidencia, el costo de las infecciones después de la cirugía colorrectal y el beneficio económico potencial del uso del cierre de la herida con antimicrobianos para mejorar los resultados de los pacientes. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo de cohorte observacional y análisis de costo probabilístico. AJUSTES: El análisis utilizó la base de datos para pacientes colorrectales en los Estados Unidos entre 2014 y 2018. PACIENTES: Un total de 107,665 pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se identificó una tasa de infección entre 3 y 180 días después de la operación, los factores de riesgo de infección, los costos de infección durante 24 meses posteriores a la operación por tipo de pagador (pagadores comerciales y Medicare), y los costos potenciales evitados por paciente utilizando una tecnología innovadora de cierre de heridas basada en evidencias. RESULTADOS: Infecciones del sitio quirúrgico, diagnosticadas postoperatoriamente en el 23,9% de los pacientes (4,0% incisional superficial y 19,9% incisional profunda / espacio orgánico). Los factores de riesgo aumentaron significativamente el riesgo de infección profunda por incisión / espacio orgánico e incluyeron comorbilidades selectivas del paciente, edad, tipo de pagador y tipo de admisión. Después de 12 meses, el aumento de los costos asociados con las infecciones varió de $ 36,429 a $ 144,809 para los pagadores comerciales y de $ 17,551 a $ 102,280 para Medicare, según el tipo de infección del sitio quirúrgico. Los costos incrementales ajustados continuaron aumentando durante un período de estudio de 24 meses para ambos pagadores. Se prevé que el uso del cierre antimicrobiano de la herida para la cirugía colorrectal reducirá significativamente los costos medios del pagador en $ 809- $ 1,170 por paciente en comparación con el cierre tradicional de la herida. LIMITACIONES: Los sesgos inherentes asociados a las bases de datos retrospectivas limitaron este estudio. CONCLUSIONES: Se encontró que la carga del costo de la infección del sitio quirúrgico es mayor que la reportada previamente, y los costos del pagador aumentaron durante un período postoperatorio de 24 meses. Los resultados del análisis de costos para la adopción del cierre de heridas antimicrobianas se alinean con estudios previos basados en evidencia, lo que sugiere un beneficio fiscal para su uso como componente de un paquete integral de atención quirúrgica basada en evidencia para reducir el riesgo de infección. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B358.

This study assessed the impact of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFx) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) on health care resource utilization and costs in the Medicare population. This retrospective observational cohort study used health care claims from the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Standard Analytic File (100%) sample. Patients aged 65+ with primary THA between 2010 and 2016 were identified and divided into 3 groups – patients with intraoperative PPHFx, patients with postoperative PPHFx within 90 days of THA, and patients without PPHFx. A multi-level matching technique, using direct and propensity score matching was used. The proportion of patients admitted at least once to skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), and readmission during the 0 to 90 or 0 to 365 day period after THA as well as the total all-cause payments during those periods were compared between patients in PPHFx groups and patients without PPHFx. After dual matching, a total 4460 patients for intraoperative and 2658 patients for postoperative PPHFx analyses were included. Utilization of any 90-day post-acute services was statistically significantly higher among patients in both PPHFx groups versus those without PPHFx: for intraoperative analysis, SNF (41.7% vs 30.8%), IRF (17.7% vs 10.1%), and readmissions (17.6% vs 11.5%); for postoperative analysis, SNF (64.5% vs 28.7%), IRF (22.6% vs 7.2%), and readmissions (92.8% vs 8.8%) (all P < .0001). The mean 90-day total all-cause payments were significantly higher in both intraoperative ($30,114 vs $21,229) and postoperative ($53,669 vs $ 19,817, P < .0001) PPHFx groups versus those without PPHFx. All trends were similar in the 365-day follow up. Patients with intraoperative and early postoperative PPHFx had statistically significantly higher resource utilization and payments than patients without PPHFx after primary THA. The differences observed during the 90-day follow up were continued over the 1-year period as well.