BackgroundThere is limited understanding of severity rating of atopic dermatitis in clinical practice.ObjectivesTo evaluate the agreement between physician- and patient-rated severity of atopic dermatitis.MethodsData were collected from the 2014 Adelphi US Atopic Dermatitis Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with a history of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis; patients voluntarily completed a questionnaire. Current disease severity (mild/moderate/severe), based on personal judgment, was rated independently by patients and their physicians. The weighted kappa statistic identified level of agreement between physicians and patients. Bivariate analyses characterized agreement; multi-nomial logistic regression identified factors associated with discordance.ResultsOverall, 678 patients were included (369 [54.4%] were women, 525 [77.4%] were White, mean age was 39.3 years). Agreement was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.52): compared with physician ratings, patient-rated severity was higher in 76 patients (11.2%), lower in 137 patients (20.2%), and matched in 465 patients (68.6%). There were no differences in the rates of agreement between physician and patient ratings based on physician specialty (p = 0.6781), objective severity measures [Eczema Area and Severity Index score (p = 0.5308), percent body surface area affected (p = 0.9872), and current systemic immunosuppressant use (p = 0.9197)]. Multivariate analysis showed patients with a worse quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index) were more likely to rate a higher severity (relative risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.08; p = 0.0460). Physicians were more likely to rate a higher severity with a greater physician-reported sleep disturbance (relative risk ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.01–2.89; p = 0.0440).ConclusionsAlmost one-third of patients rated atopic dermatitis severity differently from their physicians, supporting the importance of the patient perspective in the severity assessment of atopic dermatitis and the need for greater communication between patients and physicians.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40257-017-0284-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Since control of atopic dermatitis (AD) remains challenging but has not been adequately characterized, the objective of this study was to characterize disease control among patients with a history of moderate to severe AD. Data were from the 2014 Adelphi US AD Disease Specific Programme, a cross‐sectional survey of physicians (n = 202) and their patients with history of moderate to severe AD (n = 1064, 54% female, 75% white, mean age 40 years). Inadequately controlled AD as rated by the physician was defined as currently flaring; deteriorating/changeable AD; or physician dissatisfaction with current control. The overall inadequate control rate was 58.7% (n = 625), which increased with current AD severity and was observed in 53.4% and 83.4% of patients receiving immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids, respectively. Relative to controls, inadequately controlled patients had poorer disease‐specific quality of life, higher level of work impairment, greater itch and sleep interference with daily living (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed factors significantly associated with inadequate control (all P < 0.05), including Hispanic race, symptoms on the head/neck or lower limbs, itch and sleep interference with daily living. A limitation of the study was reliance on accuracy of reporting, potential selection bias and cross‐sectional study design. In summary, there was a high rate and substantial impact of physician‐rated inadequately controlled disease among patients with a history of moderate to severe AD, suggesting the need for more effective therapies.
IntroductionAfter a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.MethodsThis study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.ResultsThere were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.ConclusionMOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.FundingSanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
Educational program development in the format of continuing education or certificate is needed to improve pharmacists' education, confidence and training needs in PGx.
Introduction: Given the high rates of obesity and poor glycemic control among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), this study examines current trends in HbA1c and body mass index (BMI) as well as the association between HbA1c and BMI among adults with T2D. Methods: Data from the IBMÒ MarketScanÒ ExplorysÒ Claims-EMR Data were used to construct eight annual cohorts for the years 2012-2019. Each annual cohort included adults identified with T2D who had at least one recorded HbA1c laboratory result and BMI value in the year of interest. Given these cohorts, trends in HbA1c and BMI were described over time using generalized estimating equation (GEE) tests. Results: Results indicate that, over the study period from 2012-2019, average BMI increased significantly and there was a decrease in the percentage of adults with T2D who achieved glycemic control. In addition, for all years, higher BMI classification was associated with higher HbA1c values. When examining results for patients in different age groups, the findings were generally consistent with the overall population. In each age group, but most notably the age 18-44 group, the mean BMI increased over time and higher BMI was associated with higher HbA1c. Conclusion: Given the increase in BMI and decreasing percentage of individuals achieving glycemic control among adults with T2D found over the study period, therapies which decrease BMI as well as HbA1c can potentially have a significant impact on the management of T2D. The growing proportion of the younger age group with higher mean BMI may remain a key subgroup of interest.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.