Predictors and consequences of adherence to the treatment of pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Central Europe and East Asia.

PURPOSE: To assess baseline predictors and consequences of medication non-adherence in the treatment of pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from Central Europe and East Asia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data for this post-hoc analysis were taken from a 1-year prospective, observational study that included a total of 1,068 newly-diagnosed pediatric patients with ADHD symptoms from Central Europe and East Asia. Medication adherence during the week prior to each visit was assessed by treating physicians using a 5-point Likert scale, and then dichotomized into either adherent or non-adherent. Clinical severity was measured by the Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD) scale and the Child Symptom Inventory-4 (CSI-4) Checklist. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) was measured using the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition (CHIP-CE). Regression analyses were used to assess baseline predictors of overall adherence during follow-up, and the impact of time-varying adherence on subsequent outcomes: response (defined as a decrease of at least 1 point in CGI), changes in CGI-ADHD, CSI-4, and the five dimensions of CHIP-CE. RESULTS: Of the 860 patients analyzed, 64.5% (71.6% in Central Europe and 55.5% in East Asia) were rated as adherent and 35.5% as non-adherent during follow-up. Being from East Asia was found to be a strong predictor of non-adherence. In East Asia, a family history of ADHD and parental emotional distress were associated with non-adherence, while having no other children living at home was associated with non-adherence in Central Europe as well as in the overall sample. Non-adherence was associated with poorer response and less improvement on CGI-ADHD and CSI-4, but not on CHIP-CE. CONCLUSION: Non-adherence to medication is common in the treatment of ADHD, particularly in East Asia. Non-adherence was associated with poorer response and less improvement in clinical severity. A limitation of this study is that medication adherence was assessed by the treating clinician using a single item question.

Predictors of remission in the treatment of major depressive disorder: real-world evidence from a 6-month prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: This study examined potential predictors of remission among patients treated for major depressive disorder (MDD) in a naturalistic clinical setting, mostly in the Middle East, East Asia, and Mexico. METHODS: Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 6-month prospective, noninterventional, observational study that involved 1,549 MDD patients without sexual dysfunction at baseline in 12 countries worldwide. Depression severity was measured using the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Depression-related pain was measured using the pain-related items of the Somatic Symptom Inventory. Remission was defined as a QIDS-SR16 score ≤5. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to examine baseline factors associated with remission during follow-up. RESULTS: Being from East Asia (odds ratio [OR] 0.48 versus Mexico; P<0.001), a higher level of depression severity at baseline (OR 0.77, P=0.003, for Clinical Global Impression of Severity; OR 0.92, P<0.001, for QIDS-SR16), more previous MDD episodes (OR 0.92, P=0.007), previous treatments/therapies for depression (OR 0.78, P=0.030), and having any significant psychiatric and medical comorbidity at baseline (OR 0.60, P<0.001) were negatively associated with remission, whereas being male (OR 1.29, P=0.026) and treatment with duloxetine (OR 2.38 versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, P<0.001) were positively associated with remission. However, the association between Somatic Symptom Inventory pain scores and remission no longer appeared to be significant in this multiple regression (P=0.580), (P=0.008 in descriptive statistics), although it remained significant in a subgroup of patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (OR 0.97, P=0.023), but not in those treated with duloxetine (P=0.182). CONCLUSION: These findings are largely consistent with previous reports from the USA and Europe. They also highlight the potential mediating role of treatment with duloxetine on the negative relationship between depression-related pain and outcomes of depression.

Long-term functional improvements in the 2-year treatment of schizophrenia outpatients with olanzapine long-acting injection

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term changes in the functioning of schizophrenia patients receiving maintenance therapy with olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI), and whether observed changes differ from those seen with oral olanzapine. METHODS: This study describes changes in the levels of functioning among outpatients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine-LAI compared with oral olanzapine over 2 years. This was a secondary analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-year study comparing the long-term treatment effectiveness of monthly olanzapine-LAI (405 mg/4 weeks; n=264) with daily oral olanzapine (10 mg/day; n=260). Levels of functioning were assessed with the Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale. Functional status was also classified as 'good', 'moderate', or 'poor', using a previous data-driven approach. Changes in functional levels were assessed with McNemar's test and comparisons between olanzapine-LAI and oral olanzapine employed the Student's t-test. RESULTS: Over the 2-year study, the patients treated with olanzapine-LAI improved their level of functioning (per Quality of Life total score) from 64.0-70.8 (P<0.001). Patients on oral olanzapine also increased their level of functioning from 62.1-70.1 (P<0.001). At baseline, 19.2% of the olanzapine-LAI-treated patients had a 'good' level of functioning, which increased to 27.5% (P<0.05). The figures for oral olanzapine were 14.2% and 24.5%, respectively (P<0.001). Results did not significantly differ between olanzapine-LAI and oral olanzapine. CONCLUSION: In this 2-year, open-label, randomized study of olanzapine-LAI, outpatients with schizophrenia maintained or improved their favorable baseline level of functioning over time. Results did not significantly differ between olanzapine-LAI and oral olanzapine.

Estimation of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment costs based on a patient-level analysis in Catalonia (Spain)

Background: Assessing of the costs of treating disease is necessary to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and to estimate the budget impact of new interventions and therapeutic innovations. However, there are few comprehensive studies on resource use and costs associated with lung cancer patients in clinical practice in Spain or internationally. The aim of this paper was to assess the hospital cost associated with lung cancer diagnosis and treatment by histology, type of cost and stage at diagnosis in the Spanish National Health Service. Methods: A retrospective, descriptive analysis on resource use and a direct medical cost analysis were performed. Resource utilisation data were collected by means of patient files from nine teaching hospitals. From a hospital budget impact perspective, the aggregate and mean costs per patient were calculated over the first three years following diagnosis or up to death. Both aggregate and mean costs per patient were analysed by histology, stage at diagnosis and cost type. Results: A total of 232 cases of lung cancer were analysed, of which 74.1% corresponded to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 11.2% to small cell lung cancer (SCLC); 14.7% had no cytohistologic confirmation. The mean cost per patient in NSCLC ranged from 13,218 Euros in Stage III to 16,120 Euros in Stage II. The main cost components were chemotherapy (29.5%) and surgery (22.8%). Advanced disease stages were associated with a decrease in the relative weight of surgical and inpatient care costs but an increase in chemotherapy costs. In SCLC patients, the mean cost per patient was 15,418 Euros for limited disease and 12,482 Euros for extensive disease. The main cost components were chemotherapy (36.1%) and other inpatient costs (28.7%). In both groups, the Kruskall-Wallis test did not show statistically significant differences in mean cost per patient between stages. Conclusions: This study provides the costs of lung cancer treatment based on patient file reviews, with chemotherapy and surgery accounting for the major components of costs. This cost analysis is a baseline study that will provide a useful source of information for future studies on cost-effectiveness and on the budget impact of different therapeutic innovations in Spain.