the copyright), a 12-item patient-reported outcome questionnaire designed to quantify ocular disability due to dry eye disease. Methods: Study data were collected within the Restasis Review of Efficacy and Safety vs Tears in the Relief of Dry Eye (RESTORE), an observational registry. A clinician global impression (CGI) and a subject global assessment (SGA) served as anchors to estimate the MCID for the overall OSDI score (range, 0-100). The overall OSDI score defined the ocular surface as normal (0-12 points) or as having mild (13-22 points), moderate (23-32 points), or severe (33-100 points) disease. RESTORE patients were included if they completed the OSDI at the baseline visit and at a follow-up visit and had a global change rating (SGA or CGI). Results: Three hundred ten patients were included (82.3% white and 81.6% female [mean age, 57.8 years]). The CGI and SGA correlated with the OSDI score change for all OSDI categories except the normal category. The MCID ranged from 7.0 to 9.9 for all OSDI categories. The MCID ranged from 4.5 to 7.3 for mild or moderate disease and from 7.3 to 13.4 for severe disease. Conclusions: Using observational data, we estimated the MCIDs for different baseline OSDI categories of dry eye disease. These results will assist clinicians and researchers when interpreting OSDI score changes.
Over half of patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are 65 years or older. We examined patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival among elderly patients in routine clinical practice. We utilized a retrospective cohort analysis of first primary AML patients in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009, >66 years, and continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A and B in the year prior to diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression assessed overall survival by treatment. There were 3327 (40 %) patients who received chemotherapy within 3 months of diagnosis. Treated patients were more likely younger, male, and married, and less likely to have secondary AML and poor performance indicators and comorbidity score compared to untreated patients. In multivariate survival analysis, treated patients exhibited a significant 33 % lower risk of death compared to untreated patients. Significant survival benefits were noted with receipt of intensive and hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapies compared to no therapy. A survival benefit with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was seen in younger Medicare patients. This real-world study showed that about 60 % of elderly AML patients remain untreated following diagnosis. Use of anti-leukemic therapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in this elderly cohort.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00277-015-2351-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
SummaryThe final analysis of this 2-year, randomized, crossover study showed that postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with subcutaneous denosumab injections every 6 months than with once-weekly alendronate tablets. After receiving both treatments, women reported greater satisfaction with injectable denosumab and preferred it over oral alendronate.IntroductionOsteoporosis patients who are non-compliant or non-persistent with therapy may have suboptimal clinical outcomes. This 2-year, randomized, open-label, crossover study compared treatment adherence between subcutaneous denosumab, 60 mg every 6 months, and oral alendronate, 70 mg once weekly.MethodsPostmenopausal women at 25 centers in the USA and Canada with bone mineral density T-scores −4.0 to −2.0 and no prior bisphosphonate use received alendronate then denosumab, or denosumab then alendronate, over successive 12-month periods. Adherence required both compliance (denosumab injections 6 months apart or ≥80% of alendronate tablets) and persistence (both denosumab injections or ≥2 alendronate doses in the last month and completion of the treatment period).ResultsOf the 250 women enrolled (124 alendronate, 126 denosumab), 221 entered the second year (106 denosumab, 115 alendronate). Denosumab was associated with less non-adherence than alendronate (first year, 11.9% vs 23.4%; second year, 7.5% vs 36.5%). Risk ratios for non-adherence, non-compliance, and non-persistence favored denosumab in both years (p < 0.05). Of 198 subjects expressing treatment preference, 183 (92.4%) preferred the injections over the oral therapy. BMD improved further when subjects received denosumab after alendronate and remained stable when they received alendronate after denosumab.ConclusionBased on the final results of this crossover study after women had received each treatment for up to 1 year, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with subcutaneous denosumab injections every 6 months than with once-weekly alendronate tablets and reported increased treatment preference and satisfaction with injectable denosumab over oral alendronate.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1780-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background. The incidence of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) occurs disproportionately in elderly patients. We evaluated real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in elderly DLBCL patients in the U.S. Materials and Methods. A retrospective cohort analysis of 9,333 DLBCL patients from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was conducted. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007; were aged .66 years, and were continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A and B in the year prior to diagnosis. Within 3 months of diagnosis, 4,565 (49%) received rituximab plus chemotherapy (R1chemo), 2,181 (23%) received chemotherapy only, and 467 (5%) received rituximab monotherapy (R-mono). Cox proportional hazards regression assessed overall survival between R1chemo versus chemotherapy only and R-mono versus no treatment. Results. Overall, 23% of patients received no treatment, and the proportion was higher among those aged .80 years (33%).
Significantly greater treatment adherence was observed for subcutaneous administration of denosumab every 6 months than for oral alendronate once weekly.
Introduction A retrospective registry-based cohort study was conducted to examine the risk of second primary cancer following the occurrence of breast cancer in males.
Purpose: Little is known about how referrals to different cancer specialists influence cancer care for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Among Medicare enrollees, we identified factors of patients and their primary care physician that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists, and how the types of cancer specialists seen correlated with delivery of guideline-based therapies (GBTs).
Methods:Data from patients with stages III and IV NSCLC included in the SEER-Medicare database were linked to their physicians in the American Medical Association Masterfile database. Using logistic regression, we (1) identified patient and physician factors that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons); (2) identified the types of referral to cancer specialists that predicted greater likelihood of receiving GBT (per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines).
Lower treatment satisfaction was associated with a 22% (1/0.82) to 67% (1/0.60) increased risk of discontinuation/switching osteoporosis medication during 1 year of follow-up.
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.