No abstract

The concerns of physically injured trauma survivors are readily elicited and followed up during the course of the year after injury. Open-ended inquiry regarding posttraumatic concerns may complement standardized outcome assessments by identifying and contextualizing the outcomes of greatest importance to patients.

OBJECTIVES:To examine the association between atypical antipsychotic medications and incident treatment for diabetes mellitus or hyperlipidemia in elderly adults without diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. DESIGN: Two case-control studies using medical and pharmacy claims data. SETTING: United States managed care population from multiple insurance plans. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older enrolled in a Medicare Advantage or commercial (health maintenance organization) managed care health plan in the western United States with no claims indicating diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in the 1 year pre-index period. Cases were defined as persons newly initiated on an antidiabetic (n = 13,075) or antihyperlipidemic (n = 63,829) medication on the index date. For the new diabetes mellitus analysis, 65,375 controls were matched to cases based on age, sex, health-plan type, and index date year. In the new hyperlipidemia analysis, 63,829 controls were matched to cases based on the same variables. MEASUREMENTS: Conditional logistic regressions were performed to determine the odds of initiated antidiabetic or antihyperlipidemic medication for participants exposed to atypical antipsychotics compared with those with no exposure. The models included comorbidities possibly associated with the outcome. RESULTS: Exposure to atypical antipsychotics was associated with significantly greater adjusted odds of starting an antidiabetic medication (1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.59) but significantly lower odds of starting an antihyperlipidemic medication (0.76, 95% CI = 0.67-0.87). CONCLUSION: Use of atypical antipsychotics in older adults for conditions other than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder was associated with incident treatment of diabetes mellitus but not of hyperlipidemia, suggesting that older adults may be susceptible to the adverse metabolic consequences of these agents. J Am Geriatr Soc 60: 474-479, 2012.

Background and objective Retrospective claims data in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating maintenance therapy with inhaled fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA) versus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA have not been reported. Methods Retrospective observational study in a COPD-diagnosed population of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) enrollees aged ≥40 years from a US health insurer database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI [62.5/25 µg]) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL [250/50 µg]) between April 1, 2014 and August 31, 2016 (index date) and had 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index. Exclusion criteria included an asthma diagnosis in the pre-index period/index date; ICS-, LABA-, or LAMA-containing therapy during the pre-index period; or pharmacy fills for both UMEC/VI and FP/SAL, multiple-inhaler triple therapy, a non-index therapy, or COPD exacerbation on the index date. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) was modeled using weighted logistic regression following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Weighted Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression following IPTW were performed for incidence of COPD exacerbation and escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy. Results The study population included 5306 patients (1386 initiating UMEC/VI and 3920 initiating FP/SAL). Adjusted odds of adherence were 2.00 times greater among UMEC/VI than FP/SAL initiators (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62─2.46; P <0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for first exacerbation was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.74–1.01; P =0.067) among UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL initiators. UMEC/VI initiators had 35% lower adjusted risk of escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47–0.89; P =0.008) versus FP/SAL. On-treatment, UMEC/VI initiators had an adjusted 30% reduced risk of a first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54–0.90; P =0.006). Conclusion Patients with COPD initiating UMEC/VI had higher adherence and longer time before escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy than FP/SAL initiators.

Background This was the first real-world head-to-head study comparing inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist fixed-dose combination treatments as maintenance therapy. Methods Retrospective observational study including commercial, Medicare Advantage with Part D or Part D-only enrollees aged ≥40 years from the Optum Research Database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) between June 1, 2015 and November 30, 2016 (index date) with 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment. Outcomes were modeled following the inverse probability of treatment weighting. The primary endpoint, rescue medication use, was modeled using weighted ordinary least squares regression with bootstrapped variance estimation. Intent-to-treat analysis evaluated non-inferiority and superiority of UMEC/VI to TIO/OLO with thresholds of 0.30 and 0 units, respectively. On-treatment sensitivity analysis evaluated the superiority of UMEC/VI to TIO/OLO for rescue medication use. The secondary endpoint, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]≥80%), was evaluated using weighted logistic regression. Post hoc weighted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis evaluated escalation to multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT). Results The study population included 14,324 patients; 9549 initiated UMEC/VI and 4775 initiated TIO/OLO. During the 12-month post-index period, UMEC/VI initiators used 0.16 fewer adjusted mean units of rescue medication than TIO/OLO initiators (95% CI: −0.28, −0.04), meeting pre-specified non-inferiority ( P <0.001) and superiority ( P =0.005) criteria; the on-treatment sensitivity analysis for superiority was not statistically significant. Significantly more UMEC/VI than TIO/OLO initiators (28.6% vs 22.7%; P <0.001) achieved a clinically meaningful level (PDC≥80%) of medication adherence. The adjusted risk of escalation to MITT was similar between treatment groups (HR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.06; P =0.268). Conclusion UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO for rescue medication use and UMEC/VI initiators had better medication adherence than TIO/OLO initiators. This study supports findings from a head-to-head trial that demonstrated significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO.