BackgroundThis study examined medical resource utilisation patterns in the United Kingdom (UK) prior to and following Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis.MethodsA patient cohort aged 65 years and older with newly diagnosed AD between January 2008 and December 2010 was identified through the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients with a continuous record in the CPRD (formerly the General Practice Research Database [GPRD]) for both the 3 years prior to, and the 1 year following, AD diagnosis were eligible for inclusion. A control cohort was identified by matching general older adult (GOA) patients to patients with AD based on year of birth, gender, region, and Charlson Comorbidity Index at a ratio of 2:1. Medical resource utilisation was calculated in 6-month intervals over the 4-year study period. Comparisons between AD and GOA control cohorts were conducted using conditional logistic regression for patient characteristics and a generalised linear model for resource utilisation.ResultsData for the AD cohort (N = 3,896) and matched GOA control cohort (N = 7,792) were extracted from the CPRD. The groups were 65% female and the AD cohort had a mean age of 79.9 years (standard deviation 6.5 years) at the date of diagnosis. Over the entire study period, the AD cohort had a significantly higher mean primary care consultation rate than the GOA cohort (p < .0001). While the GOA cohort primary care consultation rate gradually increased over the 4-year period (ranging from 5 to 7 consultations per 6-month period), increases were more pronounced in the AD cohort (ranging from 6 to 11 consultations per 6-month period, peaking during the 6-month periods immediately prior to and post diagnosis). The AD cohort also had a higher overall specialty referral rate than the GOA cohort over the 4-year period (37% vs. 25%, respectively; p < .0001); the largest difference was during the 6 months immediately prior to AD diagnosis (17% vs. 5%, respectively; p < .0001).ConclusionsIn the UK, AD diagnosis is associated with significant increases in primary and secondary care resource utilisation, continuing beyond diagnosis. This evidence may be important to health care commissioners to facilitate effective mobilisation of appropriate AD-related health care resources.

BackgroundAlzheimer’s disease (AD), the commonest cause of dementia, represents a significant cost to UK society. This analysis describes resource utilisation, costs and clinical outcomes in non-institutionalised patients with AD in the UK.MethodsThe GERAS prospective observational study assessed societal costs associated with AD for patients and caregivers over 18 months, stratified according to baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, or moderately severe/severe [MS/S]). All patients enrolled had an informal caregiver willing to participate in the study. Healthcare resource utilisation was measured using the Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument, and 18-month costs estimated by applying unit costs of services and products (2010 values). Total societal costs were calculated using an opportunity cost approach.ResultsOverall, 526 patients (200 mild, 180 moderate and 146 MS/S at baseline) were recruited from 24 UK centres. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores deteriorated most markedly in the MS/S patient group, with declines of 3.6 points in the mild group, 3.5 points in the moderate group and 4.7 points in the MS/S group; between-group differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients with MS/S AD dementia at baseline were more likely to be institutionalised (Kaplan–Meier probability 28% versus 9% in patients with mild AD dementia; p < 0.001 for difference across all severities) and had a greater probability of death (Kaplan–Meier probability 15% versus 5%; p = 0.013) at 18 months. Greater disease severity at baseline was also associated with concomitant increases in caregiver time and mean total societal costs. Total societal costs of £43,560 over 18 months were estimated for the MS/S group, versus £25,865 for the mild group and £30,905 for the moderate group (p < 0.001). Of these costs, over 50% were related to informal caregiver costs at each AD dementia severity level.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated a mean deterioration in MMSE score over 18 months in patients with AD. It also showed that AD is a costly disease, with costs increasing with disease severity, even when managed in the community: informal caregiver costs represented the main contributor to societal costs.

ObjectiveThis was a flexible-dosed study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine 30–120 mg once daily in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in older adult patients.MethodsPatients with GAD, who were at least 65 years of age, were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either duloxetine (N = 151) or placebo (N = 140). The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score, and the primary endpoint was at week 10. Global functioning was assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability was assessed by the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, laboratory analyses, and vital signs. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis.ResultsThe overall baseline mean HAM-A total score was 24, and SDS global score was 14. Completion rates were 75% for placebo and 76% for duloxetine. At week 10, duloxetine was superior to placebo on mean changes from baseline in HAM-A total scores (−15.9 vs. −11.7, p < 0.001) and in SDS global scores (−8.6 vs. −5.4, p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in ≥5% of duloxetine-treated patients and twice the rate than with placebo including constipation (9% vs. 4%, p = 0.06), dry mouth (7% vs. 1%, p = 0.02), and somnolence (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.14).ConclusionDuloxetine treatment was efficacious in the improvement of anxiety and functioning in older adult patients with GAD, and the safety profile was consistent with previous GAD studies. © 2014 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key pointsTreatment with duloxetine versus placebo can significantly reduce symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder and was associated with improved global function and increased enjoyment and satisfaction with life in patients 65 years and older.The safety and tolerability profile for duloxetine in this older adult patient population was consistent with the established profile for treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in the broader mostly younger (≥18 years of age) population, and there were no new safety findings.

An increasing rate of antidepressant trials fail due to large placebo responses. This analysis aimed to identify variables influencing signal detection in clinical trials of major depressive disorder. Patient-level data of randomized patients with a duloxetine dose ≥ 60 mg/day were obtained from Lilly. Total scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAM-D) were used as efficacy endpoints. In total, 4661 patients from 14 studies were included in the analysis. The overall effect size (ES), based on the HAM-D total score at endpoint, between duloxetine and placebo was -0.272. Although no statistically significant interactions were found, the following results for factors influencing ES were seen: a very low ES (-0.157) in patients in the lowest baseline HAM-D category and in patients recruited in the last category of the recruitment period (-0.122). A higher ES in patients recruited in centers with a site-size at but not more than 2.5 times the average site-size for the study (-0.345). Study characteristics that resulted in low signal detection in our database were: <80% study completers, a HAM-D placebo response >5 points, a high variability of placebo response (SD > 7 points HAM-D), >6 post baseline visits per study, and use of an active control drug. Simpler trial designs, more homogeneous and mid-sized study sites, a primary analysis based on a higher cutoff blinded to investigators to avoid the influence of score inflation in mild patients and, if possible, studies without an active control group could lead to a better signal detection of antidepressive efficacy.

Findings from the National Institute of Mental Health's Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial indicate that approximately 50% of patients with major depressive disorder do not experience a treatment response after adequate first-line treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). This study was designed to test the hypothesis that, after treatment failure with an SSRI, switching to venlafaxine extended release (ER) would offer advantages over switching to another SSRI, citalopram. The objectives of this trial were to compare the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER and citalopram in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression in patients who did not experience a treatment response to an SSRI other than citalopram and to investigate the effects of severity of depression by categorizing treatment groups according to baseline severity. This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Participants were adult outpatients who, following 8 weeks of monotherapy with an adequate dosing regimen of an SSRI other than citalopram and had not responded, met the diagnostic criteria for depression as described in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, and had a score > or =20 on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21). After a 7-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER 75 mg/day or citalopram 20 mg/day for the first 2 weeks. Doses could be increased every 2 weeks through week 6. Treatment lasted 12 weeks and was followed by a 1-week tapering period. Maximum dosages were venlafaxine ER 300 mg/day or citalopram 60 mg/day. The primary end point was the final on-therapy total HAM-D21 score. To investigate the treatment effects of the severity of depression on efficacy, a subgroup analysis was performed for baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and >31. The analyses for HAM-D21, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions - Severity (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scores were based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population, for both the primary analysis and subgroup analysis according to baseline HAM-D21 total scores < or =31 or >31. Safety assessments included the recording of adverse events (AEs). A total of 406 patients (200 venlafaxine ER, 206 citalopram) were randomly assigned and 396 patients were included in the ITT population (194 venlafaxine ER, 202 citalopram). Treatment groups were similar in terms of demographics and baseline psychiatric assessments. Two hundred and eighty-four patients (137 venlafaxine ER, 147 citalopram) were present in the ITT population with a baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and 112 patients (57 venlafaxine ER, 55 citalopram) in the >31 group. In the primary analysis, there was no statistical difference between groups. The group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score of 20-31 did not differ significantly in any efficacy parameters. In the group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score ...