Citations

Abstract Background Back pain is a very prevalent complaint, affecting two-thirds of the US population, and it accounts for $100 billion annually in health care expenditures. The occurrence of depression has been reported in existing literature among patients with back pain, but there is limited information regarding health care expenditures among patients with back pain and concurrent depression. Objective To assess excess total and subtypes of health care expenditures among adults with spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and other back problems who reported having depression compared with those without depression in the United States. Methods We utilized a cross-sectional design, pooling Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data from 2010–2012. The eligible study sample included adults (age ≥18 years) who reported positive health care expenditure. Total and subtypes of health care expenditures constituted the dependent variable. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions on logged expenditures were performed. Four models were developed to assess influence of demographics, functional ability, and concurrent diagnoses on health care expenditures. Results A total of 6,739 adults with spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and other back problems were assessed, 20.2% (N = 1,316) of whom had concurrent depression. Adults with concurrent depression had significantly higher total health care expenditures ($13,153) compared with the nondepression group ($7,477, P < 0.001). Outpatient and prescription expenditures showed similar findings. After adjusting for demographics, functional disabilities, and comorbidities, excess cost remained higher in the group reporting concurrent depression (46%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the presence of depression in adults with spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and other back problems is associated with greater economic burden. These findings remained consistent after adjusting for all independent sets of variables. The study’s findings suggest that interventions resulting in better management of depression have the potential to significantly reduce the economic burden in this population.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) occurs in all races, but the incidence in non-Hispanic black patients (NHBs) is two to three times higher than in non-Hispanic white patients (NHWs). We determined the representation of minorities and elderly patients in MM clinical trials. Enrollment data from all therapeutic trials reported in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2000 to 2016 were analyzed. Enrollment fraction (EF) was defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the 2014 MM prevalence. Participation in MM clinical trials varied significantly across racial and ethnic groups; NHWs were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials (EF 0.18%) than NHBs (EF 0.06%, p < .0001) and Hispanic patients (EF 0.04%, p < .0001). The median age of trial participants was 62 years, with 7,956 participants (66%) being less than 65 years of age. Collaborations between investigators, sponsors, and the community are necessary to increase access to clinical trials to our minority and elderly patients.

Background The comparative effects of statins, ezetimibe with or without statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors remain unassessed. Design Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment groups. Methods Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (inception – September 2017). Results In network meta-analysis of 189,116 patients, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the best treatment for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (Surface Under Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA), 85%), myocardial infarction (SUCRA, 84%) and stroke (SUCRA, 80%). PCSK9 inhibitors reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with ezetimibe + statin (odds ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.55–0.95; Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria: moderate), statin (OR: 0.78; 95% CrI: 0.62–0.97; GRADE: moderate) and placebo (OR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.49–0.79; GRADE: high). The PCSK9 inhibitors were consistently superior to groups for major adverse cardiovascular event reduction in secondary prevention trials (SUCRA, 95%). Statins had the highest probability of having lowest rates of all-cause mortality (SUCRA, 82%) and cardiovascular mortality (SUCRA, 84%). Compared with placebo, statins reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88; 95% CrI: 0.83–0.94; GRADE: moderate) and cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.84; 95% CrI: 0.77–0.90; GRADE: high). For cardiovascular mortality, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the second best treatment (SUCRA, 78%) followed by ezetimibe + statin (SUCRA, 50%). Conclusion PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction and stroke, without having major safety concerns. Statins were ranked as the most effective therapy for reducing mortality.

243 Background: AA and D have been shown in separate trials to increase overall survival in patients with mCSPC compared to Androgen Derivation Therapy (ADT). In the absence of head to head clinical trials and to provide clinical guidance, we performed an indirect comparison of AA and D using network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant clinical trials. Collected data included hazard ratio and confidence interval (CI) for Overall Survival (OS) and number of adverse events in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using WinBUGS 1.4.3 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) to perform an indirect comparison of D and AA. Results: Five clinical trials were included in this analysis. Two trials (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE) compared AA to ADT and three trials (CHAARTED,STAMPEDE, GETUG-AFU 15 study) compared D to ADT. Results from both fixed effect and random effect network meta-analyses for the primary outcome (OS) revealed no statistical significance between AA and D (HR 0.81,95%CI 0.65-1.01; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.40-1.82) respectively. Comparatively, abiraterone had statistically significant fewer events of anemia (OR 0.14,95%CI 0.08-0.23), neutropenia (OR 0.06,95%CI 0.03-0.12), peripheral edema (OR 0.21,95%CI 0.09-0.44), dyspnea (OR 0.22,95%CI 0.08-0.51), nausea (OR 0.09,95%CI 0.02-0.24), diarrhea (OR 0.06,95%CI 0.02-0.15), constipation (OR 0.25,95%CI 0.11-0.53), and fatigue (OR 0.12,95%CI 0.07-0.20). AA had statistically significant more events of hot flashes (OR 3.85, 95% CI2.33-6.25). For other adverse events, both drugs were statistically similar. Conclusions: There is no difference in OS using AA for longer periods in CSPC than a regimen of a limited number of cycles of D. There are significant differences in side effect profile of these drugs. Further analyses are needed to determine cost effectiveness of AA vs D under consideration of comparative efficacy and safety.