RESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Previous estimated prevalence of narcolepsy in Europe was 47 patients per 100,000 persons, with a yearly incidence of 0.64-1.37 per 100,000. However, analyses of representative datasets from large cohorts are limited. This study aimed to estimate the population-based diagnostic prevalence and incidence of narcolepsy in Germany and to describe these patients and their health care resource utilization. METHODS: This study used the InGef research database, an anonymized representative dataset of 4 million persons covered by statutory health insurance in Germany. Patients with confirmed narcolepsy diagnoses in 2018 were included. Mid-p-exact tests were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals. Patients with narcolepsy diagnoses and narcolepsy-targeting therapy in 2014-2018 were included to describe health care resource utilization in the year prior to diagnosis. RESULTS: In 2018, diagnostic prevalence was estimated as 17.88 (95% confidence interval 16.45-19.40) and 12-month incidence as 0.79 (0.52-1.15) per 100,000 persons. Forty-six percent of patients were in psycho-behavioral therapeutic treatment and 61% of employees had sick leave days. One in three patients was hospitalized for any cause; 28% received antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic prevalence was lower, but incidence was consistent with previous reports, although previous estimates may diverge in terms of age/sex distributions. Patients showed a substantial utilization of health care resources, including sick leave and hospitalization. Almost half the patients underwent psycho-behavioral treatment in the year prior to diagnosis, which might indicate a high burden of psychiatric symptoms. The increased use of antibiotics could indicate more frequent infections than in the general population. CITATION: Kallweit U, Nilius G, Trümper D, Vogelmann T, Schubert T. Prevalence, incidence, and health care utilization of patients with narcolepsy: a population-representative study. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(6):1531-1537.
Asunto(s)
Narcolepsia , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , Incidencia , Narcolepsia/diagnóstico , Narcolepsia/epidemiología , Narcolepsia/terapia , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine (BUP) is used in opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) for opioid-dependent patients. Previous real-world evidence suggests that many patients receive lower BUP dosage than recommended, with 38% of patients receiving <6 mg BUP per day. The goal of this research is to evaluate the impact of BUP dosage on the risk of relapses in the real world. METHODS: This study was based on German claims data of 4 million patients. Patients identified by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition F11.2 (opioid dependence) between 2011 and 2012 and at least one BUP prescription were selected for this study (n = 364) and followed up over 4 years. Patients were assigned to 6 dosage groups, with <6 mg/day serving as low dosage/reference category. The impact of dosage on the occurrence of relapses (indicated by treatment interruption of >3 months without OMT prescription or hospital admissions) was examined using multivariate logistic regression. Age, gender, comorbidities, fixed/variable dosing, and up-dosing were used as covariates. RESULTS: Results showed a protective effect of higher BUP as higher BUP dosages were significantly associated with a lower risk of relapse. Using low dosage (<6 mg/day) as the reference category, ORs were 0.40 (95% CI 0.19-0.87) at 6-<8 mg/day, 0.28 (0.15-0.56) at 8-<10 mg/day, 0.26 (0.10-0.67) at 10-<12 mg/day, 0.40 (0.18-0.92) at 12-<16 mg/day, and 0.18 (0.09-0.37) at ≥16 mg/day. No covariate showed a significant effect on the probability of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The present study used a large German health claims dataset to confirm that higher BUP dosages are a protective factor for avoiding relapses in opioid-dependent patients, thus highlighting the importance of adequate BUP dosing in relapse prevention.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Buprenorfina/administración & dosificación , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/estadística & datos numéricos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/epidemiología , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Alemania/epidemiología , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos , RecurrenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is a substance use disorder with a chronic course associated with comorbid mental and somatic disorders, a high burden of psychosocial problems and opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) as a standard treatment. In the US, OUD imposes a significant economic burden on society, with annual societal costs estimated at over 55 billion dollars. Surprisingly, in Europe and especially in Germany, there is currently no detailed information on the healthcare costs of patients with OUD. The goal of the present research is to gather cost information about OUD patients in OMT with a focus on maintenance medication and relapses. METHODS: We analysed health claims data of four million persons covered by statutory health insurance in Germany, applying a cost-of-illness approach and aimed at examining the direct costs of OMT patients in Germany. Patients with an ICD-10 code F11.2 and at least one claim of an OMT medication were stratified into the treatment groups buprenorphine, methadone or levomethadone, based on the first prescription in each of the follow-up years. Costs were stratified for years with and without relapses. Group comparisons were performed with ANOVA. RESULTS: We analysed 3165 patient years, the total annual sickness funds costs were on average 7470 per year and patient. Comparing costs of levomethadone (8400 , SD: 11,080 ), methadone (7090 , SD: 10,900 ) and buprenorphine (6670 , SD: 7430 ) revealed significant lower costs of buprenorphine compared to levomethadone (p < 0.0001). In years with relapses, costs were higher than in years without relapses (8178 vs 7409 ; SD: 11,622, resp. 10,378 ). In years with relapses, hospital costs were the major cost driver. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows the costs of OUD patients in OMT for the first time with a German dataset. Healthcare costs for patients with an OUD in OMT are associated with more than two times the cost of an average German patients. Preventing relapses might have significant impact on costs. Patients in different OMT were dissimilar which may have affected the cost differences.