Eric S. Meadows

Factors associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or osteopenia from a national survey

BackgroundHealth outcomes could be improved if women at high risk for osteoporotic fracture were matched to effective treatment. This study determined the extent to which treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia corresponded to the presence of specific risk factors for osteoporotic fracture.MethodsThis retrospective analysis of the United States 2007 National Health and Wellness Survey included women age ≥ 40 years who reported having a diagnosis of osteoporosis (69% of 3276) or osteopenia (31% of 3276). Patients were stratified by whether they were or were not taking prescription treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia. Using 34 patient characteristics as covariates, logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment.ResultsCurrent prescription treatment was reported by 1800 of 3276 (54.9%) women with osteoporosis/osteopenia. The following factors were associated with receiving prescription treatment: patient-reported diagnosis of osteoporosis (versus osteopenia); previous bone mineral density test; ≥ 2 fractures since age 50; older age; lower body mass index; better physical functioning; postmenopausal status; family history of osteoporosis; fewer comorbidities; prescription insurance coverage; higher total prescription count; higher ratio of prescription costs to monthly income; higher income; single status; previous visit to a rheumatologist or gynecologist; and 1 or 2 outpatient visits to healthcare provider (vs. none) in the prior 6 months. Glucocorticoid, tobacco, and daily alcohol use were risk factors for fracture that were not associated with treatment.ConclusionsThere is a mismatch between those women who could benefit from treatment for osteoporosis and those who are actually treated. For example, self-reported use of glucocorticoids, tobacco, and alcohol were not associated with prescription treatment of osteoporosis. Other clinical and socioeconomic factors were associated with treatment (e.g. prescription drug coverage and higher income) or not (e.g. comorbid osteoarthritis and anxiety) and could be opportunities to improve care.

Assessment of the clinical management of fragility fractures and implications for the new HEDIS osteoporosis measure.

Background: Rates of screening for and treatment of osteoporosis have been low, even among those with fractures who are at greatest risk for new fractures. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine trends in the clinical management of patients with fragility fractures to provide baseline data for future assessments of the impact of the new Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure. Research Design: The MarketScan Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits (COB) database was used to examine adherence to the 2004 HEDIS guidelines by measuring the percent of women age 67 and older who were screened and/or treated after a fracture from 2000 through 2005. Clinical, demographic, and provider characteristics were assessed to determine the correlates of being screened and treated. Results: The overall unadjusted percent of women screened and treated remains low, with just 10.2% screened and 12.9% treated in 2005. Multivariate analyses, which controlled for fracture location, patient characteristics, physician specialty, and region indicated small, albeit statistically significant, increases in treatment and screening over time. Women fracturing in 2005 were 27% more likely to be screened and 15% more likely to receive treatment relative to those fracturing in the year 2000. Conclusions: Although our study found some improvements in the screening for and treatment of osteoporosis among Medicare beneficiaries with a fragility fracture from 2000 through 2005, the overall percent of women screened and/or treated remained low. These data provide a baseline for assessing the impact of the new HEDIS measure in the coming years.

Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia

BackgroundLimited data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene, alendronate and conservative care in this population.MethodsWe developed a microsimulation model to assess the incremental cost and effectiveness of raloxifene and alendronate relative to conservative care. We assumed a societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon. We examined clinical scenarios involving postmenopausal women from 55 to 75 years of age with bone mineral density T-scores ranging from -1.0 to -2.4. Modeled health events included vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, invasive breast cancer, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Raloxifene and alendronate were assumed to reduce the incidence of vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures; raloxifene was assumed to decrease the incidence of breast cancer and increase the incidence of VTEs. Cost-effectiveness is reported in

Validation of a Two-item Quantitative Questionnaire for the Triage of Women With Urinary Incontinence

/QALYs gained.ResultsFor women 55 to 60 years of age with a T-score of -1.8, raloxifene cost approximately

Rehospitalization following percutaneous coronary intervention for commercially insured patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective analysis.

50,000/QALY gained relative to conservative care. Raloxifene was less cost-effective for women 65 and older. At all ages, alendronate was both more expensive and less effective than raloxifene. In most clinical scenarios, raloxifene conferred a greater benefit (in QALYs) from prevention of invasive breast cancer than from fracture prevention. Results were most sensitive to the populations underlying risk of fracture and breast cancer, assumed efficacy and costs of treatment, and the discount rate.ConclusionFor 55 and 60 year old women with osteopenia, treatment with raloxifene compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel in a US managed care population

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproducibility, construct validity, and preferences for the 2-item Stress/Urge Incontinence Questionnaire. METHODS: The questionnaire asks a patient to recall the number of stress urinary incontinence and urge urinary incontinence episodes she experienced during the preceding week. The 4-week prospective study included 3 office visits and enrolled women with stress, urge, or mixed urinary incontinence symptoms. The test–retest reproducibility was assessed after 3 days, and the construct validity of the questionnaire was evaluated against a diary and other measures of incontinence severity and effect. The bother associated with completing (patients) or analyzing (physicians) the diary was assessed. Both groups also reported their time requirements and preferences for the questionnaire or diary. RESULTS: Reproducibility for the classification of symptoms was moderately strong (&kgr; = .536). Test–retest agreement was good (64–80%) for all but balanced mixed incontinence (38%). Intraclass correlations revealed good reproducibility for the number of stress (.694), urge (.703), and total (.726) incontinence episodes. Significant (P < .01) correlations with other measures of incontinence established construct validity. Patients and physicians reported it took less time to complete the questionnaire than the diary, but the majority said the completion or analysis of the diary was of little or no bother and preferred the diary. CONCLUSION: The Stress/Urge Incontinence Questionnaire is a valid tool that can be used in clinical practice to differentiate between symptoms of stress and urge urinary incontinence to make an initial diagnosis, especially in primary care where incontinence is not a focus of the practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Characteristics of patients initiating raloxifene compared to those initiating bisphosphonates

BackgroundWhile prior research has provided important information about readmission rates following percutaneous coronary intervention, reports regarding charges and length of stay for readmission beyond 30 days post-discharge for patients in a large cohort are limited. The objective of this study was to characterize the rehospitalization of patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention in a U.S. health benefit plan.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data from a large US managed care plan at index hospitalization, 30-days, and 31-days to 15-months rehospitalization. A valid Diagnosis Related Group code (version 24) associated with a PCI claim (codes 00.66, 36.0X, 929.73, 929.75, 929.78–929.82, 929.84, 929.95/6, and G0290/1) was required to be included in the study. Patients were also required to have an ACS diagnosis on the day of admission or within 30 days prior to the index PCI. ACS diagnoses were classified by the International Statistical Classification of Disease 9 (ICD-9-CM) codes 410.xx or 411.11. Patients with a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke were excluded from the study because of the focus only on ACS-PCI patients. A clopidogrel prescription claim was required within 60 days after hospitalization.ResultsOf the 6,687 ACS-PCI patients included in the study, 5,174 (77.4%) were male, 5,587 (83.6%) were <65 years old, 4,821 (72.1%) had hypertension, 5,176 (77.4%) had hyperlipidemia, and 1,777 (26.6%) had diabetes. At index hospitalization drug-eluting stents were the most frequently used: 5,534 (82.8%). Of the 4,384 patients who completed the 15-month follow-up, a total of 1,367 (31.2%) patients were rehospitalized for cardiovascular (CV)-related events, of which 811 (59.3%) were revascularization procedures: 13 (1.0%) for coronary artery bypass graft and 798 (58.4%) for PCI. In general, rehospitalizations associated with revascularization procedures cost more than other CV-related rehospitalizations. Patients rehospitalized for revascularization procedures had the shortest median time from post-index PCI to rehospitalization when compared to the patients who were rehospitalized for other CV-related events.ConclusionsFor ACS patients who underwent PCI, revascularization procedures represented a large portion of rehospitalizations. Revascularization procedures appear to be the most frequent, most costly, and earliest cause for rehospitalization after ACS-PCI.

Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs and Drug Utilization Patterns of Postmenopausal Medicare Beneficiaries with Osteoporosis

Abstract Objective: Decision-makers in the US may be interested in the applicability to their populations of cost-effectiveness results generated from clinical trial populations. Methods: An economic model estimating the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel plus aspirin relative to clopidogrel plus aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed from a managed care organization (MCO) perspective. The model estimated 15-month cardiovascular events or bleeding-related outcomes, life expectancy, and costs for patients who received thienopyridine treatment during and after a PCI following a diagnosis of ACS. Post-ACS event rates for patients treated with clopidogrel were from an MCO. The relative risks of these events with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel were from a head-to-head clinical trial. Results: The results of the base-case analysis indicated that, in an MCO population, use of prasugrel-based therapy rather than clopidogrel-based therapy at current prices resulted in cost-savings and fewer clinical events over the 15 months after an ACS diagnosis followed by PCI. At possible lower prices for generic clopidogrel-based therapy, the cost-effectiveness ratio for prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy was between

Illness-associated productivity costs among women with employer-sponsored insurance and newly diagnosed breast cancer.

6643 and

Factors Associated with Persistence with Teriparatide Therapy: Results from the DANCE Observational Study.

13,906 per life-year gained. The results were most sensitive to the relative costs of the two treatments and the cost for hospital stays. Limitations: Limitations of the study included lack of follow-up of patients disenrolling from the MCO before the end of the 15-month observation period, the assumption of equal relative risks of events in an MCO as in the clinical trial, and the lack of information on the ratio of cost to charges in the MCO database. Conclusions: Use of prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy in ACS patients having a PCI resulted in cost-savings at current prices and favorable cost-effective ratios at likely generic prices for clopidogrel-based therapy because of offsetting savings in the costs of rehospitalization.