Summary
Purpose: To examine the characteristics and healthcare costs of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) patients in clinical practice.
Materials and methods: Using a US health‐insurance database, we identified all patients, aged ≥ 18 years, with any healthcare encounters for FMS (ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis code 729.1) in each year of the 3‐year period, 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2005. A comparison group was then constituted, consisting of randomly selected patients without any healthcare encounters for FMS during this 3‐year period. Comparison group patients were matched to FMS patients based on age and sex. Characteristics and healthcare costs of FMS patients and comparison group patients were then examined over the 1‐year period, 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (the most recent year for which data were available at the time of the study).
Results: The study sample consisted of 33,176 FMS patients and an identical number in the comparison group. Mean age was 46 years, and 75% were women. FMS patients were more likely to have various comorbidities, including painful neuropathies (23% vs. 3% for comparison group), anxiety (5% vs. 1%), and depression (12% vs. 3%) (all p < 0.001); they also were more likely to have used pain‐related pharmacotherapy (65% vs. 34% for comparison group; p < 0.001). Mean (SD) total healthcare costs over 12 months were about three times higher among FMS patients [$9573 ($20,135) vs. $3291 ($13,643); p < 0.001]; median costs were fivefold higher ($4247 vs. $822; p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Patients with FMS have comparatively high levels of comorbidities and high levels of healthcare utilization and cost.
Failure of initial antibiotic therapy in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections is associated with significantly worse clinical and economic outcomes.
Our findings suggest that many patients who begin migraine prophylaxis with antidepressants, antiepileptics, or beta blockers are no longer taking these medications at 6 months.
Background: To examine the clinical and economic burdens associated with delayed receipt of appropriate therapy among patients with Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections, stratified by antibiotic resistance status. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis using the Premier Hospital Database. Adult admissions (July 2011-September 2014) with evidence of complicated urinary tract infection, complicated intra-abdominal infection, hospital-associated pneumonia, or bloodstream infection, length of stay (LOS) ≥1 days and a positive GNB culture from a site consistent with infection type (culture draw date = index date) were identified and stratified by antibiotic susceptibility to index pathogens. Delayed appropriate therapy was defined as no receipt of antibiotic(s) with relevant microbiological activity on or within 2 days of index date. Inverse probability weighting and multivariate regression analyses were used to estimate the association between delayed appropriate therapy and outcomes. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate postindex duration of antibiotic therapy, LOS and total in-hospital costs. Logistic models were used to evaluate discharge destination and in-hospital mortality/discharge to hospice. Results: A total of 56,357 patients with GNB infections were identified (resistant, n = 6,055; susceptible, n = 50,302). Delayed appropriate therapy was received by 2,800 (46.2%) patients with resistant and 16,585 (33.0%) patients with susceptible infections. Using multivariate analysis, delayed appropriate therapy was associated with worse outcomes including »70% increase in LOS, »65% increase in total in-hospital costs and »20% increase in the risk of in-hospital mortality/discharge to hospice, regardless of susceptibility status. Conclusions: Our results suggest that outcomes in patients with GNB infections, regardless of resistance status, significantly improve if timely appropriate therapy can be provided.
Failure of initial IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized adults with cIAIs is associated with longer hospitalization, higher hospital charges, and a higher mortality rate.
BackgroundSchizophrenia and bipolar disorder are chronic debilitating disorders that are often treated with second-generation antipsychotic agents, such as aripiprazole, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. While patients who are hospitalized for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder often receive these agents at discharge, comparatively little information exists on subsequent patterns of pharmacotherapy.MethodsUsing a database linking hospital admission records to health insurance claims, we identified all patients hospitalized for schizophrenia (ICD-9-CM diagnosis code 295.XX) or bipolar disorder (296.0, 296.1, 296.4-296.89) between January 1, 2001 and September 30, 2008 who received aripiprazole, quetiapine, or ziprasidone at discharge. Patients not continuously enrolled for 6 months before and after hospitalization (“pre-admission” and “follow-up”, respectively) were excluded. We examined patterns of use of these agents during follow-up, including adherence with treatment (using medication possession ratios [MPRs] and cumulative medication gaps [CMGs]) and therapy switching. Analyses were undertaken separately for patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, respectively.ResultsWe identified a total of 43 patients with schizophrenia, and 84 patients with bipolar disorder. During the 6-month period following hospitalization, patients with schizophrenia received an average of 101 therapy-days with the second-generation antipsychotic agent prescribed at discharge; for patients with bipolar disorder, the corresponding value was 68 therapy-days. Mean MPR at 6 months was 55.1% for schizophrenia patients, and 37.3% for those with bipolar disorder; approximately one-quarter of patients switched to another agent over this period.ConclusionsMedication compliance is poor in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder who initiate treatment with aripiprazole, quetiapine, or ziprasidone at hospital discharge.
BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare pre- and post-surgical healthcare costs in commercially insured total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in the United States (U.S.).MethodsUsing a large healthcare claims database, we identified patients over age 39 with hip or knee OA who underwent unilateral primary TJA (hip or knee) between 1/1/2006 and 9/30/2007. Utilization of healthcare services and costs were aggregated into three periods: 12 months "pre-surgery," 91 days "peri-operative," and 3 to 15 month "follow-up," Mean total pre-surgery costs were compared with follow-up costs using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.Results14,912 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. The mean total number of outpatient visits declined from pre-surgery to follow-up (18.0 visits vs 17.1), while the percentage of patients hospitalized increased (from 7.5% to 9.8%) (both p < 0.01). Mean total costs during the follow-up period were 18% higher than during pre-surgery ($11,043 vs. $9,632, p < 0.01), largely due to an increase in the costs of inpatient care associated with hospital readmissions ($3,300 vs. $1,817, p < 0.01). Pharmacotherapy costs were similar for both periods ($2013 [follow-up] vs. $1922 [pre-surgery], p = 0.33); outpatient care costs were slightly lower in the follow-up period ($4338 vs. $4571, p < 0.01). Mean total costs for the peri-operative period were $36,553.ConclusionsMean total utilization of outpatient healthcare services declined slightly in the first year following TJA (exclusive of the peri-operative period), while mean total healthcare costs increased during the same time period, largely due to increased costs associated with hospital readmissions. Further study is necessary to determine whether healthcare costs decrease in subsequent years.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.