BackgroundTo estimate the potential cost savings by following the current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline recommendations in patients being treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with the combination of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).MethodsThe Geisinger Health System (GHS) database was utilized to identify subjects between January 1, 2004 to March 12, 2007. The index date was based on the first prescription of a LAMA plus LABA, LAMA plus LABA/ICS, or LABA plus ICS. Patients were included in the study if they: had a COPD diagnosis; had data representative of treatment 12 months prior to and 12 months post index date; were 40 years of age or over; had no prior diagnosis for asthma; and had pulmonary function test (PFT) data. We examined the baseline characteristics of these patients along with their healthcare resource utilization. Based on PFT data within 30 days of the index date, a subgroup was classified as adhering or non-adhering to GOLD guidelines.ResultsA total of 364 subjects could be classified as adhering or non-adherent to current GOLD guidelines based on their PFT results. The adherent subgroup received COPD medications consistent with current GOLD guidelines. Of the LAMA plus LABA cohort, 25 patients adhered and 39 patients were non-adherent to current GOLD guidelines. In the cohort of LABA plus ICS, 74 patients were adherent and 180 patients non-adherent to current GOLD guidelines. In the cohort of LAMA plus LABA/ICS, 21 patients were adherent and 25 patients non-adherent to current GOLD guidelines. GOLD adherence was associated with mean total cost of all services savings of $5,889 for LAMA plus LABA, $3,330 for LABA + ICS, and $10,217 for LAMA plus LABA/ICS cohorts.ConclusionStaging of COPD with a PFT and adherence to current GOLD guidelines was associated with lower costs in subjects with moderate to severe COPD. Appropriate use of LAMA plus LABA, LABA plus ICS, and LAMA plus LABA/ICS has economic as well as clinical benefits for patients and payers.

Background: Morbidity and mortality for women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are increasing, and little is known about gender differences in perception of COPD care. Methods: Surveys were administered to a convenience sample of COPD patients to evaluate perceptions about symptoms, barriers to care, and sources of information about COPD. Results: Data on 295 female and 273 male participants were analyzed. With similar frequencies, women and men reported dyspnea and rated their health as poor/very poor. Although more women than men reported annual household income < $30,000, no significant gender differences in frequency of health insurance, physician visits, or ever having had spirometry were detected. In adjusted models (1) women were more likely to report COPD diagnostic delay (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.45, p = 0.01), although anxiety (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.10-3.06, p = 0.02) and history of exacerbations (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08-2.37, p = 0.01) were also significant predictors, (2) female gender was associated with difficulty reaching one's physician (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.33-4.86, p = 0.004), as was prior history of exacerbations (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.21-4.20, p = 0.01), and (3) female gender (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.10-4.21, p = 0.02) was the only significant predictor for finding time spent with their physician as insufficient. Conclusions: Significant gender-related differences in the perception of COPD healthcare delivery exist, revealing an opportunity to better understand what influences these attitudes and to improve care for both men and women.

The use of pen devices improves the health economics benefits and adherence to insulin therapy.

For patients with diabetes newly initiating insulin glargine, using an insulin pen device was associated with increased therapy persistence and adherence, and lower HbA1c levels relative to vial/syringe, without increasing total all-cause or diabetes-related costs.

IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression often results in treatment intensification with injectable therapy to maintain glycemic control. Using pilot data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Anti-diabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens study, real-world treatment patterns among T2DM patients initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine or liraglutide were assessed.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of claims from the OptumInsight™ (OI; January 1, 2010 to July 30, 2010) and HealthCore® (HC; January 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010) health insurance databases. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs were compared between adults with T2DM initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine pen versus liraglutide. Follow-up outcomes, including glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, health care utilization, and costs, were assessed.ResultsAt baseline, almost one in three liraglutide patients (OI, n = 363; HC, n = 521) had A1C <7.0%, while insulin glargine patients (OI, n = 498; HC, n = 1,188) had poorer health status, higher A1C (insulin glargine: 9.8% and 9.1% versus liraglutide: 7.9% and 7.7%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.001), and were less likely to be obese (insulin glargine: 10.8% and 9.2% versus liraglutide: 17.4% and 18.8%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.01). The percentage of patients experiencing a hypoglycemic event was numerically higher for insulin pen use for both cohorts (OI 4.4% versus 3.0%; HC 6.2% versus 2.3%). During follow-up, in the insulin glargine cohort, annualized diabetes-related costs remained unchanged ($8,344 versus $7,749 OI, and $7,094 versus $7,731 HC), despite a significant increase in pharmacy costs, due to non-significant decreases in medical costs, while the liraglutide cohort had a significant increase in annualized diabetes-related costs ($4,510 versus $7,731 OI, and $4,136 versus $7,111 HC; both P < 0.001) due to a non-significant increase in medical costs coupled with a significant increase in pharmacy costs.ConclusionThese descriptive data identified differences in demographic and baseline clinical characteristics among patients initiating injectable therapies. The different health care utilization and cost patterns warrant further cost-effectiveness analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-013-0074-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.