Impact of self-rated osteoarthritis severity in an employed population: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the national health and wellness survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although osteoarthritis (OA) often affects older persons, it has a profound effect on individuals actively employed. Despite reports of reduced productivity among workers with OA, data are limited regarding the impact of OA among workers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of self-rated OA severity on quality of life, healthcare resource utilization, productivity and costs in an employed population relative to employed individuals without OA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This cross-sectional analysis used data derived from the 2009 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS). Multivariable analyses characterized outcomes and costs (direct medical costs and indirect) among workers (full-time, part-time, or self-employed) ≥ 20 years of age who were diagnosed with OA and who self-rated their OA severity as mild, moderate, or severe relative to workers without OA. Evaluated outcomes included productivity, assessed using the Work Productivity and Impairment (WPAI) scale; health-related quality of life, using the SF-12v2 Health Survey; and healthcare resource utilization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>4,876 workers reported being diagnosed with OA (45.0% mild, 45.9% moderate, and 9.1% severe); 34,896 workers comprised the non-OA comparator cohort. There was a greater proportion of females in the OA cohort (55.5% vs 45.6%; <it>P </it>< 0.0001) and more individuals in the 40-64 year and ≥ 65 year age ranges (<it>P </it>< 0.0001). As OA severity increased, workers reported more frequent pain, poorer quality of life, greater use of specific healthcare resources (hospitalizations) and reduced productivity. All outcomes indicated a significantly greater burden among workers with OA relative to those without OA (<it>P </it>< 0.0001). Estimated total annual costs per worker were $9,801 for mild OA,$14,761 for moderate OA, $22,111 for severe OA compared with$7,901 for workers without OA (<it>P </it>< 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Workers with OA were characterized by significant disease and economic burdens relative to workers without OA that substantially increased with greater self-rated OA severity. Greater levels of OA severity were associated with reductions in quality of life and productivity, and increases in healthcare resource utilization and costs.</p

Burden of Gastrointestinal Disease in the United States: 2012 Update

Gastrointestinal (GI) diseases account for substantial morbidity, mortality and cost. Statistical analyses of the most recent data are necessary to guide GI research, education and clinical practice. We estimate the burden of GI disease in the US

Evaluating the health and economic impact of osteoarthritis pain in the workforce: results from the National Health and Wellness Survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There has been increasing recognition that osteoarthritis (OA) affects younger individuals who are still participants in the workforce, but there are only limited data on the contribution of OA pain to work productivity and other outcomes in an employed population. This study evaluated the impact of OA pain on healthcare resource utilization, productivity and costs in employed individuals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were derived from the 2009 National Health and Wellness Survey. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to characterize employed individuals (full-time, part-time, or self-employed) ≥20 years of age who were diagnosed with OA and had arthritis pain in the past month relative to employed individuals not diagnosed with OA or not experiencing arthritis pain in the past month. Work productivity was assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire; health status was assessed using the physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores from the SF-12v2 Health Survey and SF-6D health utilities; and healthcare utilization was evaluated by type and number of resources within the past 6 months. Direct and indirect costs were estimated and compared between the two cohorts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Individuals with OA pain were less likely to be employed. Relative to workers without OA pain (n = 37,599), the OA pain cohort (n = 2,173) was significantly older (mean age 52.1 ± 11.5 years vs 41.4 ± 13.2 years; <it>P </it>< 0.0001) and with a greater proportion of females (58.2% vs 45.9%; <it>P </it>< 0.0001). OA pain resulted in greater work impairment than among workers without OA pain (34.4% versus 17.8%; <it>P </it>< 0.0001), and was primarily due to presenteeism (impaired activity while at work). Health status, assessed both by the SF-12v2 and the SF-6D was significantly poorer among workers with OA pain (<it>P </it>< 0.0001), and healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher (<it>P </it>< 0.0001) than workers without OA pain. Total costs were higher in the OA pain cohort ($15,047 versus$8,175; <it>P </it>< 0.0001), driven by indirect costs that accounted for approximately 75% of total costs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A substantial proportion of workers suffer from OA pain. After controlling for confounders, the impact of OA pain was significant, resulting in lower productivity and higher costs.</p

Multinational Internet-based survey of patient preference for newer oral or injectable Type 2 diabetes medication

Marco daCosta DiBonaventura1, Jan-Samuel Wagner1, Cynthia J Girman2, Kimberly Brodovicz2, Qiaoyi Zhang3, Ying Qiu3, Sri-Ram Pentakota3, Larry Radican31Health Sciences Practice, Kantar Health, New York; 2Epidemiology, 3Global Health Outcomes, Merck, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USABackground: The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus continues to rise. Although glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor medications are effective, there are differences between these products, including method of administration (injectable versus oral). The objective of this study was to examine patient preferences (and predictors of preferences) for two different medication profiles, one similar to a GLP-1 analog (liraglutide) and another similar to a DPP-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin).Methods: Internet survey data were collected in two waves (wave 1, n = 2402; wave 2, n = 1340) using patients from the US and Europe. Patients were presented with two hypothetical medication profiles (&amp;ldquo;drug A&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;drug B&amp;rdquo;, resembling sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively) and asked to report their preferences.Results: Most patients in wave 1 and wave 2 reported that overall they would prefer a drug with the sitagliptin-like profile (81.9% and 84.4%, respectively) over a drug with the liraglutide-like profile (18.1% and 15.6%, respectively), and &amp;gt;80% of patients reported that they would be able to take a drug with the sitagliptin-like profile as directed by their physician for a longer period. The likelihood of preferring the sitagliptin-like profile significantly increased as age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02) and importance placed on method of administration (OR = 1.32) increased (P &amp;lt; 0.05). Although the sitagliptin-like profile was preferred by the majority of patients in all subgroups, a lower proportion of patients with obesity, with weight gain, with A1C values above target, and who exercised preferred the sitagliptin-like profile compared with those without obesity (77.0% versus 87.9%), without weight gain (77.8% versus 86.7%), with A1C values at or below target (79.0% versus 86.5%), and who did not exercise (81.6% versus 86.4%), respectively (P &amp;lt; 0.05).Conclusions: This research suggests that patients (across geographies) prefer an oral medication with a profile resembling sitagliptin to an injectable medication with a profile resembling liraglutide.Keywords: Type 2 diabetes, medication preference, sitagliptin, liraglutid

Multicountry burden of chronic hepatitis C viral infection among those aware of their diagnosis: a patient survey.

BackgroundThe World Health Organization has called for global and regional assessments of the burden of hepatitis C (HCV) along with country-specific patient profiles to better inform healthcare policy. The present investigated the characteristics and burden of patients reporting a diagnosis of HCV infection in the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, urban China, and Japan using a consistent methodology of patient-reported surveys.MethodsThe 2010 5EU (N = 57,805), 2009 US (N = 75,000), 2008/2009 Japan (N = 37,683), and 2009/2010 urban China (N = 33,261) waves of the National Health and Wellness Survey were used as the data source. Within each country, patients with a self-reported diagnosis of HCV were compared with those who did not report a diagnosis of HCV on sociodemographics, health behaviors, comorbidities, and health outcomes (e.g., Short Form-12v2). The effect of HCV was examined using regression analysis applying sampling weights.ResultsThe prevalence of HCV ranged from 0.26% (China) to 1.42% (Italy). Patients in Japan and Italy (61.60 and 61.02 years, respectively) were the oldest, while patients in the US were the most likely to be obese (39.31%) and have concomitant anxiety (38.43%) and depression (46.05%) compared with other countries. Pooling countries and adjusting for sociodemographics, health behaviors, and comorbidities, HCV was associated with significantly lower physical component summary scores (b = -2.51) and health utilities (b = -0.04) and greater overall work impairment (b = 8.79), physician visits (b = 2.91), and emergency department visits (b = 0.30) (all pConclusionsHCV was associated with a significant humanistic and economic burden. These results suggest that the manifestation of the HCV burden, and the profile of the patients themselves, varied dramatically by country. Successful disease management should be cognizant of region-specific unmet needs