Adherence to Chronic Kidney Disease Screening Guidelines Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in a US Administrative Claims Database

ObjectiveTo examine the screening rates for kidney damage and function among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease stage at diabetes diagnosis using a US administrative claims database.Patients and MethodsThis cohort study used a claims database enriched with laboratory results data. Patients with T2D (defined as 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims for diabetes), aged 18 years or older, and with at least 1 year of follow-up enrollment were identified. Patients with type 1 diabetes, kidney disease, or other related conditions at baseline were excluded. We estimated screening rates using laboratory orders for serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurement and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR). Chronic kidney disease severity was reported using the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes classification based on laboratory results.ResultsA total of 1,881,447 patients with T2D were eligible for analysis. Mean ± SD age was 63.1±13.1 years; 947,150 patients (50.3%) were male. Serum creatinine tests were ordered within 14 days of the index date among 290,722 patients of 622,915 (46.7%) patients with newly-recognized T2D. Overall, 1,595,964 patients (84.8%) had at least one serum creatinine test ordered during the 1-year follow-up period. Fewer patients received a UACR test during follow-up (814,897 [43.3%]). Less than half of all patients with T2D received a laboratory test order for both serum creatinine and urine albumin measurements during the follow-up period.ConclusionPhysicians treating patients with diabetes are selectively adhering to chronic kidney disease screening guidelines, as indicated by high rates of eGFR testing, but less frequent UACR testing. Despite recommendations to monitor both eGFR and UACR, less than half of patients were screened for albuminuria during the 1-year follow-up.     

Cost evolution of biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a tertiary hospital: Influential factors on price

ObjectiveTo assess the evolution of cost per patient/year and the cost per patient/year/drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving biological treatments. To analyze and quantify the factors influencing this evolution, such as the optimization of the biological drugs, the use of biosimilars, and official discounts and discounts obtained after negotiated procedures. In addition, to assess specific clinical parameters of disease activity in these patients.MethodsRetrospective, observational study conducted in a Spanish tertiary hospital. Adult patients diagnosed with RA under treatment from 2009 to 2017 were included.Results320, 270 and 389 patients were included in 2009, 2013 and 2017, respectively. The patient/year cost decreased from 10,789€ in 2009, 7491€ in 2013 to 7116€ in 2017. In 2017, due to the established competition, discounts of 14% and 29.5% were achieved on etanercept and its biosimilar; 11.5%, 17.8%, 17.9%, 17.3% on adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tocilizumab IV respectively, and 24.6% and 43.1% on infliximab and its biosimilar. The percentage of patients optimized in 2017 was 35.2%. The annual saving in 2017 was 1,288,535€ (830,000€ due to dose optimization and/or administration regimens, 249,666€ corresponding to 7.5% of the official discount and 208,868€ after negotiated procedures).ConclusionThe annual cost per patient in RA decreased considerably due to different factors, such as discounts on the purchase of drugs due to official discounts and negotiated procedures, together with the optimization of therapies, the latter being the factor that contributed most to this decrease.     

Prejudice and the Plate: Effects of Weight Bias in Nutrition Judgments

As millions of people turn to social media for health information, better understanding the factors that guide health-related judgments and perceptions in this context is imperative. We report on two Web experiments (n > 400 total) examining the power of society’s widespread weight bias and related stereotypes to influence nutrition judgments in social media spaces. In Experiment 1, meals were judged as lower in nutritional quality when the person who recommended them (the source) was depicted as obese rather than of normal weight, an effect mediated by stereotypic beliefs about the source as a generally unhealthy person. Experiment 2 replicated this effect, which—notably—remained significant when controlling for objective nutritional information (calories and fat content). Results highlight spillover effects of weight bias that extend beyond person perception to color impressions of objects (here, food) that are associated with stigmatized attributes. Implications for everyday nutrition judgments and public health are considered.     

Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life of Induction Chemotherapy Compared With Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation Therapy in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

AimsOrgan preservation, an important goal in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), may include induction chemotherapy and cisplatin with radiation therapy (CRT). To our knowledge, no reports have directly compared the impact of induction chemotherapy with that of CRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).Materials and methodsIn a phase II trial, we assessed the HRQOL of patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by CRT. Eligible patients had stage III–IV HNSCC. HRQOL questionnaires were administered at baseline, the end of induction (EOI), the end of CRT (EOCRT) and after CRT. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT version 4) assessed HRQOL. We carried out a comparison of changes in HRQOL from baseline to EOI and from EOI to EOCRT. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01566435).ResultsThirty patients were enrolled in the study. Most HRQOL questionnaires were completed (88%). The mean total FACT scores did not differ from baseline to EOI (general: 83.8 versus 79.1, P = 0.08; head and neck: 109.7 versus 105.8, P = 0.33; Total Outcome Index: 69.7 versus 62.3, P = 0.03; respectively, using P ≤ 0.01 to adjust for multiple simultaneous tests of differences). However, total FACT scores significantly worsened from EOI to EOCRT (79.1 versus 62.3, P = 0.01; 105.8 versus 74.2, P < 0.01; 62.3 versus 34.2, P = 0.01; respectively). Within domains, the head and neck cancer subscale score did not differ from baseline to EOI (median 28.5 versus 27.0, P = 0.69), but significantly worsened from EOI to EOCRT (27.0 versus 9.5, P < 0.01). Swallowing, oral pain and voice quality improved from baseline to EOI, but worsened from EOI to EOCRT. Physical and functional scores worsened from baseline to EOI and from EOI to EOCRT. The emotional well-being score improved from baseline to EOI but worsened from EOI to EOCRT.ConclusionsOverall, HRQOL did not significantly change from baseline to EOI but dramatically worsened from EOI to EOCRT.