Hypoparathyroidism is a rare endocrine disorder whose incidence and prevalence have not been well defined. This study aimed to 1) estimate the number of insured adult patients with hypoparathyroidism in the United States and 2) obtain physician assessment of disease severity and chronicity. Prevalence was estimated through calculation of diagnoses of hypoparathyroidism in a large proprietary health plan claims database over a 12-month period from October 2007 through September 2008 and projected to the US insured population. Incidence was also calculated from the same database by determining the proportion of total neck surgeries resulting in either transient (6 months) or chronic (>6 months) hypoparathyroidism. A physician primary market research study was conducted to assess disease severity and determine the percentage of new nonsurgical patients with hypoparathyroidism. Incidence data were entered into an epidemiologic model to derive an estimate of prevalence. The diagnosis-based prevalence approach estimated 58,793 insured patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism in the United States. The surgical-based incidence approach yielded 117,342 relevant surgeries resulting in 8901 cases over 12 months. Overall, 7.6% of surgeries resulted in hypoparathyroidism (75% transient, 25% chronic). The prevalence of chronic hypoparathyroidism among insured patients included in the surgical database was estimated to be 58,625. The physician survey found that 75% of cases treated over the past 12 months were reported due to surgery and, among all thyroidectomies and parathyroidectomies and neck dissections performed in a year, 26% resulted in transient hypoparathyroidism and 5% progressed to a chronic state. In conclusion, the two claims-based methods yielded similar estimates of the number of insured patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism in the United States (58,700). The physician survey was consistent with those calculations and confirmed the burden imposed by hypoparathyroidism.

Introduction In non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), particularly diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) and follicular (FL) lymphomas, the prevalence, burden of disease, including that of relapse/recurrence, and quality of life (QoL) play a role in how novel treatment strategies are evaluated. We conducted a literature review to identify whether the current understanding of the prevalence, burden of illness (BOI) including QoL in these two predominant NHL histologies is sufficient to support novel treatment and resource allocation decisions. Methods Using EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, conference abstracts, treatment guidelines, and government, business and industry literature such as data from the WHO, we identified estimates for prevalence and BOI, defined as disease-related costs and QoL, for DLBCL and FL, from 2005 to 2013 in the US and EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). In addition to appropriate MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms, search terms included, but were not limited to, burden of illness, quality of life, QoL, HRQoL, cost, direct cost, resource use, resource utilization, economic, incidence, prevalence, epidemiology, and mortality. Findings BOI-related information within DLBCL and FL are very limited and antiquated DLBCL Only one health economic study was identified – a US study using data from 1999-2000 in patients with aggressive NHL, including DLBCL (Kutikova et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2006). Among the patients receiving initial treatment, which did not include the current standard of care R-CHOP, 68% of patients experienced treatment failure. The incremental cost of treatment failure was $14,174 per month, driven by higher initial treatment costs ($13,866 vs $4,754) and the need for secondary and/or palliative care ($5,062). However, these data may not accurately depict relapse rates and costs associated with more current standards of care. For QoL, one study was identified in DLBCL, a US based study in the elderly. The NCI sponsored Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medical Health Outcomes Survey database was used to evaluate QoL in elderly DLBCL patients using the Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey. Patients surveyed 0–1 year after the diagnosis of DLBCL had poor QoL scores (physical component [PCS] median=33.6, mental component [MCS] median=40.8, poor self-rated health: 51.6%) (Kelly et al. Blood. 2012). FL Only one health economic study was identified – a US study using data from 2006-2009 which estimated the cost of disease progression. Results showed that mean overall per patient per month (PPPM) costs over the 6-month follow-up were significantly higher for patients with progressive disease (PD) vs non-PD ($3527 vs. $860; difference=$ 2667; p<0.001) (Beveridge et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011). One QoL study was identified, a UK study that reported statistically significant differences by disease state using multiple QoL instruments. The total scores derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) questionnaire showed that relapsed patients have lower QoL scores (109.7) than newly diagnosed patients (136.4), those achieving partial (128.81) or complete response (133.28), or when disease free (135.26) (p = 0.001) (Pettengell et al. Ann of Oncol. 2008). Regarding prevalence data, in the EU5, prevalence of DLBCL ranges from 30 – 58% of NHL cases and in the US estimates range from 25 – 35%. Prevalence of FL is lower, ranging from 11 – 19% in the EU5 and 20 – 25% in the US. Regarding the prevalence of relapse/recurrent disease, one-third of DLBCL patients are either relapsed or refractory after standard therapy (Friedberg. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; Abramson et al. Blood. 2005). Conclusions Currently available data related to BOI and prevalence are limited and dated making it difficult to accurately assess the impact of DLBCL and FL on patients and healthcare systems. In the absence of renewed information it may be challenging to quantify the incremental impact that novel regimens may have on clinical outcomes, BOI, and QoL. While NHL mortality has steadily decreased over the past few decades as treatment options have improved, updated and accurate epidemiologic and BOI data are needed to better characterize the impact that novel treatments in development may have on the overall clinical, BOI and patient-reported outcomes in DBLCL and FL. Disclosures: Dulac: Celgene Corporation: Employment. Joy: IMS Health: Employment. Ndindjock: IMS Health: Employment. Coyle: IMS Health: Employment. Wade: IMS Health: Employment, Research Funding.

OBJECTIVES:To compare the quality of diabetes care across non-Hispanic whites and Blacks and Hispanics in the United States using selected American Diabetes Association standards of care. There are few studies using large federal databases evaluating disparities among racial/ethnic groups in diabetes care. The last one was conducted using the Medication Expenditure Panel Survey 2000-2001 cohort. This study provides a more comprehensive assessment of the Standards. METHODS: Data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey 2009-2010 cohort was used to compare quality markers such as diabetes-related access to care (physician and diabetes specialists visits), medical care (self-monitoring, treatment, dietary habits, laboratories) and co-morbidities (prevalence, treatment and monitoring) across the racial/ ethnic groups. We used one-way ANOVA and chi-square test to compare continuous and discrete variables across Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and other. RESULTS: Overall this group had a mean age of 61Ϯ14, 51% were male, 60% had no more than a high school diploma, and 55% had an income Ͻ$35,000. Only age and education level were different across groups(pϽ0.05). Average blood pressure and total cholesterol levels were at goal except for hemoglobin A1c which was 7.3%Ϯ1.7 and different across groups(pϭ0.003). We found that the use of insulin, frequency of blood glucose monitoring, foot and exam in the last year, nurse educator/nutritionist/dietitian visits, and diabetic retinopathy, hypertension and hyperlipidemia diagnoses were significantly different across groups(all pϽ0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A possible relationship between race/ethnicity and adherence to various standards of diabetes care may exist. A more rigorous epidemiologic study is needed to confirm our findings.

No abstract