Dataset Information

Agitation in Dementia: Real-World Impact and Burden on Patients and the Healthcare System.

ABSTRACT:

Background

At least 90%of patients with dementia experience behavioral or neuropsychiatric symptoms including agitation, psychotic symptoms, apathy, depression, and sleep disturbances. Agitation has been reported to be experienced by 60%of patients with mild cognitive impairment and 76%of patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Objective

We aimed to assess the impact of agitation in patients with dementia on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of physician-reported patient data from a point-in-time survey. Patients included were aged≥50 years, with early cognitive impairment or dementia. Agitated and non-agitated patients were compared. Regression analyses assessed the relationship of agitation score (calculated from number/severity of agitation symptoms) with outcomes, with covariates including age and Mini-Mental State Examination score. Sensitivity analyses compared patients with 0 and≥2 agitation symptoms following propensity score matching on the base-case covariates.

Results

Data were included for 1,349 patients (agitated, n = 693; non-agitated, n = 656). Based on regression analyses, agitation score was correlated with proportion of patients with professional caregivers (p < 0.01), institutionalized (p < 0.01), hospitalized in a psychiatric ward (p < 0.05), and receiving an antipsychotic/antidepressant (both p < 0.001); number of consultations with a healthcare professional (HCP), psychiatrist, or psycho-geriatrician; number and cost of hospitalizations (p < 0.01); cost of HCP consultations (p < 0.001); and total direct healthcare costs (p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses generally supported the base-case analysis.

Conclusion

Agitation in dementia is associated with increased HCRU and healthcare costs. Effective therapies are needed to address agitation in dementia, with the potential to alleviate patient impact, HCRU, and healthcare costs.

SUBMITTER: Jones E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8461728 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Information on patient's death is a major outcome of health-related research, but it is not always available in claim-based databases. Herein, we suggested the operational definition of death as an optimal indicator of real death and aim to examine its validity and application in patients with cancer. Materials and methods: Data of newly diagnosed patients with cancer between 2006 and 2015 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort data were used. Death indicators were operationally defined as follows: 1) in-hospital death (the result of treatment or disease diagnosis code from claims data), or 2) case wherein there are no claims within 365 days of the last claim. We estimated true-positive rates (TPR) and false-positive rates (FPR) for real death and operational definition of death in patients with high-, middle-, and low-mortality cancers. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were conducted to determine whether real death and operational definition of death rates were consistent. Results: A total of 40,970 patients with cancer were recruited for this study. Among them, 12,604 patients were officially reported as dead. These patients were stratified into high- (lung, liver, and pancreatic), middle- (stomach, skin, and kidney), and low- (thyroid) mortality groups consisting of 6,626 (death: 4,287), 7,282 (1,858), and 6,316 (93) patients, respectively. The TPR was 97.08% and the FPR was 0.98% in the high mortality group. In the case of the middle and low mortality groups, the TPR (FPR) was 95.86% (1.77%) and 97.85% (0.58%), respectively. The overall TPR and FPR were 96.68 and 1.27%. There was no significant difference between the real and operational definition of death in the log-rank test for all types of cancers except for thyroid cancer. Conclusion: Defining deaths operationally using in-hospital death data and periods after the last claim is a robust alternative to identifying mortality in patients with cancer. This optimal indicator of death will promote research using claim-based data lacking death information.

Project description:Aim: The purpose of this retrospective, population-based, observational cohort analysis was to assess whether routine patient-reported outcomes (PRO) monitoring alone has an impact on real-world overall survival (OS) and hospitalizations among individuals diagnosed with lung, breast or colorectal cancer. The importance of follow-up care in post-PRO data collection was also discussed. Patients & methods: Administrative databases covering 17 cancer centers from Alberta, Canada were queried and individuals ≥18 years old and diagnosed with lung, breast or colorectal cancer from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2019 were included and followed until 31 December 2020. Patients were stratified by whether they received routine PRO monitoring initiated within 120 days of diagnosis and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death, and the respective Kaplan-Meier curves were estimated along with hazard ratios from Cox Proportional Hazard Models. Linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate mean differences and odds ratios (OR) respectively for healthcare resource utilization events including cancer physician visits, emergency department visits and outpatient ambulatory care encounters. Results: 4800 patients were included in each matched cohort. There was no statistically significant difference between PRO monitoring and non-monitoring cohorts in OS (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.93-1.09; p = 0.836) and treatment discontinuation (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.85-1.12; p = 0.75). Median OS was 51.5 months for unmonitored cohort (95% CI: 47.5-NA) versus 50.6 months for monitored cohort (95% CI: 47.6-55.7). Compared with PRO-monitored patients, unmonitored patients were associated with lower hospitalization risks (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03-1.22; p = 0.01). However, PRO-monitored patients experienced significantly fewer physician visits in comparison to unmonitored patients (MD = -1.036; 95% CI: -1.288 to -0.784, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our results show that capturing patient-reported symptoms alone reduced the number of physician visits but neither reduced hospitalizations nor improved OS in this real-world cancer population. To drive more meaningful clinical impact, PRO monitoring programs must be met with rigorous follow-up response to the identified symptoms.

Project description:BackgroundA gap remains in documenting the impact of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy on disease burden in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients treated in a real-world setting. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been discussed as a primary endpoint in the context of the FDA PRO Guidance, for labelling purposes. Specifically, the efficacy and safety of adalimumab have been demonstrated in pivotal trials; however, data are needed to understand how clinical results translate into improvements in key aspects of the daily lives of UC patients, such as symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and disability.AimTo assess real-world effectiveness of adalimumab on PRO measures in patients with moderate-to-severe UC.MethodsUCanADA was a single arm, prospective, 1-year multicenter Canadian post-marketing observational study in which multiple PRO questionnaires were completed-with psychologic distress/depression symptoms as the primary endpoint-by patients with moderate-to-severe UC. Assessments were performed during patients' routine care visit schedule, which was at the initiation of adalimumab (baseline), after induction (approximately 8 wk), and 52 wk after baseline. Additional optional assessments between weeks 8 and 52 were collected at least once but no more than two times during this period. Serious safety events and per-protocol adverse events were collected.ResultsFrom 23 Canadian centres, 100 patients were enrolled and 48 completed the study. Measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items at week 52, 61.5% (40/65) [95% confidence interval (CI): 49.7%-73.4%] of the patients improved in psychologic distress/depression symptoms, which was slightly higher in completers [65.9% (29/44); 95%CI: 51.9%-79.9%)]. At week 52, clinical response and clinical remission were achieved respectively by 65.7% (44/73) and 47.8% (32/73) of the patients. The odds of improving depressive symptoms for those achieving a clinical remission at week 52 was 7.94 higher compared with those not achieving a clinical remission (CI: 1.42, 44.41; P = 0.018). Significant changes from baseline to weeks 8 and 52 were observed in disability, HRQoL, and fatigue. Meaningful improvement was reported in work impairment.ConclusionAt week 52, over 60% of the UCanADA patients had depressive symptoms significantly reduced, as well as HRQoL, fatigue symptoms, and work impairment improved. No new safety signals were detected.