Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention compared with no treatment, generic bisphosphonates, and strontium ranelate in a cohort of osteoporotic postmenopausal women in Spain

Cardiovascular Event Rates After Myocardial Infarction or Ischaemic Stroke in Patients with Additional Risk Factors : A Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: The impact of additional risk factors on major cardiovascular event (MACE) rates in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischaemic stroke (IS) treated with statins is not well defined. METHODS: In this retrospective population-based cohort study, patients with a history of MI or IS treated with moderate- or high-intensity statins were identified using Swedish national register data. Patients were incident (index event between July 2006 and December 2014 and followed from diagnosis) or prevalent (MI or IS before July 2006 and followed thereafter). Four subgroups were defined on the basis of additional risk factors associated with increased cardiovascular risk: diabetes mellitus with target organ damage; chronic kidney disease stages 3-4; index event within 2 years after prior MI or IS; and polyvascular disease. First and total MACE rates (i.e. MI, IS, or cardiovascular death) were calculated, and first MACE 10-year risks (prevalent cohort only) were predicted. RESULTS: Numerically, MACE rates in subgroups were 1.5-3 times higher than in overall populations, and were highest in the 2 years after the index event. First MACE rates in the additional risk factor subgroups were 17.2-33.5 per 100 person-years for the incident cohorts and 9.9-13.2 per 100 person-years for the prevalent cohorts. Total MACE rates per 100 person-years were 20.1-39.8 per 100 person-years and 12.4-17.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite previous use of moderate- or high-intensity statins, patients with a history of MI or IS, and additional risk factors remain at very high cardiovascular risk

Non-statin lipid-lowering therapy over time in very-high-risk patients: effectiveness of fixed-dose statin/ezetimibe compared to separate pill combination on LDL-C

Background!#!Many patients at very-high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk do not reach guideline-recommended targets for LDL-C. There is a lack of data on real-world use of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies (LLT) and little is known on the effectiveness of fixed-dose combinations (FDC). We therefore studied prescription trends in oral non-statin LLT and their effects on LDL-C.!##!Methods!#!A retrospective analysis was conducted of electronic medical records of outpatients at very-high cardiovascular risk treated by general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists, and prescribed LLT in Germany between 2013 and 2018.!##!Results!#!Data from 311,242 patients were analysed. Prescriptions for high-potency statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) increased from 10.4% and 25.8% of patients treated by GPs and cardiologists, respectively, in 2013, to 34.7% and 58.3% in 2018. Prescription for non-statin LLT remained stable throughout the period and low especially for GPs. Ezetimibe was the most prescribed non-statin LLT in 2018 (GPs, 76.1%; cardiologists, 92.8%). Addition of ezetimibe in patients already prescribed a statin reduced LDL-C by an additional 23.8% (32.3 ± 38.4 mg/dL), with a greater reduction with FDC [reduction 28.4% (40.0 ± 39.1 mg/dL)] as compared to separate pills [19.4% (27.5 ± 33.8 mg/dL)]; p < 0.0001. However, only a small proportion of patients reached the recommended LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL (31.5% with FDC and 21.0% with separate pills).!##!Conclusions!#!Prescription for high-potency statins increased over time. Non-statin LLT were infrequently prescribed by GPs. The reduction in LDL-C when statin and ezetimibe were prescribed in combination was considerably larger for FDC; however, a large proportion of patients still remained with uncontrolled LDL-C levels

A systematic literature review comparing methods for the measurement of patient persistence and adherence

Objectives: A systematic literature review was conducted comparing different approaches estimating persistence and adherence in chronic diseases with polypharmacy of oral and subcutaneous treatments. Methods: This work followed published guidance on performing systematic reviews. Twelve electronic databases and grey literature sources were used to identify studies and guidelines for persistence and adherence of oral and subcutaneous therapies in hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Outcomes of interest of each persistence and adherence data collection and calculation method included pros: accurate, easy to use, inexpensive; and cons: inaccurate, difficult to use, expensive. Results: A total of 4158 records were retrieved up to March 2017. We included 16 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews and 7 guidelines, in patients with hypercholesterolemia (n=8), type 2 diabetes (n=4), hypertension (n=2), rheumatoid arthritis (n=1) and mixed patient populations (n=13). Pharmacy and medical records offer an accurate, easy and inexpensive data collection method. Pill count, medication event monitoring systems (MEMs), self-report questionnaires and observer report are easy to use. MEMS and biochemical monitoring tests can be expensive. Proportion of days covered (PDC) was recommended as a gold standard calculation method for long-term treatments. PDC avoids use of days' supply in calculation, hence is more accurate compared to medication possession ratio (MPR) to assess adherence to treatments in chronic diseases. Conclusions: Decisions on what method to use should be based on considerations of the route of medication administration, the resources available, setting and aim of the assessment. Combining different methods may provide wider insights into adherence and persistence, including patient behavior

Effects of lipid-lowering treatment intensity and adherence on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent myocardial infarction : a Swedish register-based study

Background: Oral lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) is the standard of care for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, insufficient treatment intensity and poor adherence can lead to suboptimal treatment benefit, rendering patients at increased risk of CVD. Aims: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in LLT intensity and adherence in Sweden over time, and their association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after recent myocardial infarction (MI), and also to assess the impact of transition from secondary to primary care on intensity and adherence. Methods and results: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from Swedish nationwide patient registers and included patients on LLT after an MI in the years 2010–2016 (n = 50,298; mean age, 68 years; 69% men). LLT intensity was evaluated over time (overall, for 2010–2013 and for 2014–2016) as the proportion of patients prescribed low-, moderate-, and high-intensity LLT. Adherence was assessed as the proportion of days covered. A combined measure of intensity and adherence was also considered. Differences in treatment patterns and MACE were assessed. Initiation of high-intensity LLT increased over the two time periods studied (2010–2013, 32%; 2014–2016, 91%). Adherence varied by LLT intensity and was highest in patients receiving high-intensity LLT (>80%), especially during the first time period. Little change in treatment intensity or the combined measure of intensity and adherence was observed after transition to primary care. There was a significant association between the combined measure of intensity and adherence and MACE reduction (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] per 10% increase in the combined measure: 0.84 [0.82–0.86]; P < 0.01). Conclusion: The proportion of post-MI patients with high LLT intensity and adherence has increased in recent years, with little change after transfer from specialist to primary care. The combination of LLT intensity and adherence is important for preventing future cardiovascular events

A systematic literature review comparing methods for the measurement of patient persistence and adherence

<p><b>Objectives:</b> A systematic literature review was conducted comparing different approaches estimating persistence and adherence in chronic diseases with polypharmacy of oral and subcutaneous treatments.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> This work followed published guidance on performing systematic reviews. Twelve electronic databases and grey literature sources were used to identify studies and guidelines for persistence and adherence of oral and subcutaneous therapies in hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Outcomes of interest of each persistence and adherence data collection and calculation method included pros: accurate, easy to use, inexpensive; and cons: inaccurate, difficult to use, expensive.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> A total of 4158 records were retrieved up to March 2017. We included 16 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews and 7 guidelines, in patients with hypercholesterolemia (<i>n</i> = 8), type 2 diabetes (<i>n</i> = 4), hypertension (<i>n</i> = 2), rheumatoid arthritis (<i>n</i> = 1) and mixed patient populations (<i>n</i> = 13). Pharmacy and medical records offer an accurate, easy and inexpensive data collection method. Pill count, medication event monitoring systems (MEMs), self-report questionnaires and observer report are easy to use. MEMS and biochemical monitoring tests can be expensive. Proportion of days covered (PDC) was recommended as a gold standard calculation method for long-term treatments. PDC avoids use of days’ supply in calculation, hence is more accurate compared to medication possession ratio (MPR) to assess adherence to treatments in chronic diseases.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Decisions on what method to use should be based on considerations of the route of medication administration, the resources available, setting and aim of the assessment. Combining different methods may provide wider insights into adherence and persistence, including patient behavior.</p