Dataset Information

Receipt of glucocorticoid monotherapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis.

ABSTRACT: Using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improves outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is a nationally endorsed quality measure. We investigated the prevalence and predictors of receiving glucocorticoids alone for the treatment of RA in a nationwide sample of Medicare beneficiaries.Among individuals ages ?65 years with RA enrolled in the Part D prescription drug benefit in 2009, we compared those with ?1 DMARD claim to those receiving glucocorticoid monotherapy, defined as no DMARD claim and an annual glucocorticoid supply of ?180 days or an annual dose of ?900 mg of prednisone or equivalent. We fit multivariable models to determine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with glucocorticoid monotherapy.Of 8,125 beneficiaries treated for RA, 10.2% (n = 825) received glucocorticoids alone. Beneficiaries with low incomes were more likely to receive glucocorticoids alone (12.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 10.9-13.8% versus 9.4%; 95% CI 8.6-10.1%), as were those living in certain US regions. More physician office visits and hospitalizations were associated with glucocorticoid monotherapy. Individuals who had no contact with a rheumatologist were significantly more likely to receive glucocorticoids alone (17.5%; 95% CI 16.0-19.0% versus 8.5%; 95% CI 7.4-9.5% for those with no rheumatology visits versus 1-4 visits).Approximately 1 in 10 Medicare beneficiaries treated for RA received glucocorticoids without DMARDs in 2009. Compared to DMARD users, glucocorticoid users were older, had lower incomes, were more likely to live in certain US regions, and were less likely to have seen a rheumatologist, suggesting persistent gaps in quality of care despite expanded drug coverage under Part D.

SUBMITTER: Yazdany J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4459885 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Receipt of glucocorticoid monotherapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis.

Yazdany Jinoos J Tonner Chris C Schmajuk Gabriela G Lin Grace A GA Trivedi Amal N AN

Arthritis care & research 20141001 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improves outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is a nationally endorsed quality measure. We investigated the prevalence and predictors of receiving glucocorticoids alone for the treatment of RA in a nationwide sample of Medicare beneficiaries.<h4>Methods</h4>Among individuals ages ≥65 years with RA enrolled in the Part D prescription drug benefit in 2009, we compared those with ≥1 DMARD claim to those receiving glucocorti ...[more]

PMID: 25244314

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo examine the relationship between dementia status and receipt of eye care among US Medicare beneficiaries.DesignRetrospective, claims-based analysis.ParticipantsA 20% representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries who received care between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015.MethodsDementia was identified from diagnosis codes documented in a beneficiary's first 3 years of observed Medicare enrollment. Eye care visits were identified from provider specialty codes on each encounter claim. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models with time-varying covariates to compare the likelihood of receiving eye care between beneficiaries with and without dementia. All models were adjusted for potential confounders, including demographics, urban/rural residence, systemic health (Charlson Index), and ocular comorbidities.Main outcome measuresHazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for (1) being seen by any eye care provider (ophthalmologist or optometrist); (2) being seen by an ophthalmologist specifically; and (3) receiving cataract surgery (among beneficiaries with ophthalmologist encounters).ResultsA total of 4 451 200 beneficiaries met inclusion criteria; 3 805 718 (85.5%) received eye care during the study period, and 391 556 (8.8%) had diagnosed dementia. Some 73.4% of beneficiaries diagnosed with dementia saw an eye care provider during the study period and 55.4% saw an ophthalmologist versus 86.7% and 74.0% of beneficiaries, respectively, without dementia diagnoses. Compared with those without dementia diagnoses, beneficiaries with diagnosed dementia had lower likelihood of seeing any eye care provider (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.69-0.70) and were less likely to see an ophthalmologist (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.55-0.55). Among the subset of beneficiaries who did see ophthalmologists, those with diagnosed dementia were also less likely to receive cataract surgery than beneficiaries without diagnosed dementia (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.62-0.63) and less likely to receive a cataract diagnosis (18% vs. 82%).ConclusionsUS Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with dementia are less likely to receive eye care than those without diagnosed dementia. Depending on visual acuity and functional status, this may have implications for injury prevention, physical and cognitive function, and quality of life. Further work is needed to identify barriers to receiving eye care, determine eye care services and settings that provide greatest value to patients with dementia, and implement measures to improve access to appropriate eye care.

Project description:BackgroundMedicare Advantage (MA) covers more than 1/3rd of all Medicare beneficiaries. MA plans are required to provide the same benefits as Traditional Medicare (TM), but can impose utilization management tools to control costs.ObjectiveTo assess differences between TM and MA enrollees in the probability of receiving prescribed post-acute home health (HH) care and to describe MA plan characteristics associated with HH receipt.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of claims data, HH patient assessment data, and MA plan data from 2011 to 2017.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older with an incident hospitalization for joint replacement, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, urinary tract infection, septicemia, acute renal failure, or congestive heart failure.Main measuresReceipt of prescribed HH as indicated by a HH discharge code and corresponding HH patient assessment within 14 days of hospital discharge.Key resultsThere were 2,723,245 beneficiaries prescribed HH at discharge (68% TM, 32% MA). About 75% of TM enrollees and 62% of MA enrollees received prescribed post-acute HH. In adjusted analyses, MA enrollees had an -11.7 percentage point (pp) (95% confidence interval (CI): -16.8, -6.5) lower probability of receiving HH compared with TM enrollees. In adjusted analyses, HMO enrollees in plans with cost sharing (- 8.4 pp; 95% CI: - 14.3, - 2.5), referrals (- 3.7 pp; 95% CI: - 6.1, - 1.2), and pre-authorization (- 5.1 pp; 95% CI: - 8.3, - 2.0) were less likely to receive prescribed HH. In adjusted analyses, PPO enrollees in plans with cost sharing were -7.0 pp (95% CI: - 12.7, - 1.4) less likely to receive HH, but there was no difference for those with referrals (1.1 pp; 95% CI, - 1.5, 3.7) or pre-authorization (1.6 pp; 95% CI: - 0.6, - 3.9).ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries, MA enrollees were less likely to receive prescribed post-acute HH compared with TM. As enrollment in MA continues to grow, it is important to examine how differences in utilization relate to outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.

Project description:IntroductionTargeted DMARD (tDMARD) use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may increase whole-body insulin sensitivity. Evidence comparing the T2DM-related clinical and economic impact of abatacept versus other tDMARDs is limited. This study compared differences in T2DM-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with RA and T2DM.MethodsThis retrospective study used 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims (parts A/B/D) to identify patients ≥ 65 age, diagnosed with RA and T2DM, and were either TNFi-experienced (switched from a TNFi to another tDMARD) or tDMARD-naïve, initiating their first tDMARD (abatacept, TNFi, or non-TNFi) between 2010 and 2017. Abatacept users were propensity-score (PS) matched to TNFi and other non-TNFi users separately on baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, T2DM-related HCRU, and costs. Post-index follow-up: until discontinuation of index treatment, disenrollment, death, or end of study period, whichever occurred first. T2DM-related complications and HCRU were assessed. Costs were normalized to per-patient-per-month (PPPM) and inflated to 2019 US$.ResultsThe TNFi-experienced group included 2169 abatacept/TNFi and 2118 abatacept/other non-TNFi PS-matched pairs; the tDMARD-naïve group included 2667 abatacept/TNFi and 2247 abatacept/other non-TNFi PS-matched pairs. For TNFi-experienced patients, T2DM-related complication rates for inpatient settings PPPM trended lower for abatacept than TNFi (21 vs. 24, p = 0.046) and other non-TNFi groups (21 vs. 26; p < 0.0001). T2DM-related total costs PPPM for TNFi-experienced patients demonstrated lower trends for abatacept than TNFi ($489 vs. $594, p = 0.016) and other non-TNFi users ($493 vs. $606, p = 0.012).ConclusionsMedicare beneficiaries with RA and T2DM who switch to/initiate abatacept as their first tDMARD have directionally lower rates and costs of T2DM-related complications compared with patients switching to/initiating other tDMARDs. Abatacept treatment may help reduce clinical and economic burdens associated with T2DM in patients with RA.

Project description:ImportanceCytokine signaling, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin (IL)-6, through the Janus-kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway, was hypothesized to attenuate the risk of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) in the Drug Repurposing for Effective Alzheimer Medicines (DREAM) initiative based on multiomics phenotyping.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between treatment with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept and risk of incident ADRD.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted among US Medicare fee-for-service patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 65 years and older from 2007 to 2017. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on initiation of tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors compared with a common comparator abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). Analyses were conducted from August 2020 to August 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was onset of ADRD based on diagnosis codes evaluated in 4 alternative analysis schemes: (1) an as-treated follow-up approach, (2) an as-started follow-up approach incorporating a 6-month induction period, (3) incorporating a 6-month symptom to diagnosis period to account for misclassification of ADRD onset, and (4) identifying ADRD through symptomatic prescriptions and diagnosis codes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression after adjustment for 79 preexposure characteristics through propensity score matching.ResultsAfter 1:1 propensity score matching to patients using abatacept, a total of 22 569 propensity score-matched patient pairs, including 4224 tofacitinib pairs (mean [SD] age 72.19 [5.65] years; 6945 [82.2%] women), 6369 tocilizumab pairs (mean [SD] age 72.01 [5.46] years; 10 105 [79.4%] women), and 11 976 TNF inhibitor pairs (mean [SD] age 72.67 [5.91] years; 19 710 [82.3%] women), were assessed. Incidence rates of ADRD varied from 2 to 18 per 1000 person-years across analyses schemes. There were no statistically significant associations of ADRD with tofacitinib (analysis 1: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51]; analysis 2: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.53-1.13]; analysis 3: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.72-2.33]; analysis 4: HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.21-1.20]), tocilizumab (analysis 1: HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.55-1.21]; analysis 2: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.81-1.35]; analysis 3: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.75-1.96]; analysis 4: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.44-1.39]), or TNF inhibitors (analysis 1: HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.72-1.20]; analysis 2: HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]; analysis 3: HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.86-1.48]; analysis 4: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.60-1.37]) compared with abatacept. Results from prespecified subgroup analysis by age, sex, and baseline cardiovascular disease were consistent except in patients with cardiovascular disease, for whom there was a potentially lower risk of ADRD with TNF inhibitors vs abatacept, but only in analyses 2 and 4 (analysis 1: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.50-1.16]; analysis 2: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]; analysis 3: HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.65-1.61]; analysis 4: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.98]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study did not find any association of risk of ADRD in patients treated with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept.

Dataset Information

Receipt of glucocorticoid monotherapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis.

Publications

Receipt of glucocorticoid monotherapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets