Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pulmonary hypertension resulting from chronic lung disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease is categorized by the World Health Organization as Group 3 pulmonary hypertension. To identify the symptoms and impacts of World Health Organization Group 3 pulmonary hypertension and to capture data related to the patient experience of this disease, qualitative research interviews were undertaken with 3 clinical experts and 14 individuals with pulmonary hypertension secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease. Shortness of breath, fatigue, cough, and swelling were the most frequently reported symptoms of pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease, and shortness of breath was further identified as the single most bothersome symptom for most patients (71.4%). Interview participants also described experiencing a number of impacts related to pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary hypertension symptoms, including limitations in the ability to perform activities of daily living and impacts on physical functioning, family life, and social life as well as emotional impacts, which included frustration, depression, anxiety, isolation, and sadness. Results of these qualitative interviews offer an understanding of the patient experience of pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease, including insight into the symptoms and impacts that are most important to patients in this population. As such, these results may help guide priorities in clinical treatment and assist researchers in their selection of patient-reported outcome measures for clinical trials in patients with pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease.

Background Decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness estimates as an aid for selecting interventions with an appropriate balance between health benefits and costs. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of published cost-effectiveness models in major depressive disorder (MDD) with a focus on the methods employed. Key components of the identified models are discussed and any challenges in developing models are highlighted. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify all primary model-based economic evaluations of MDD interventions indexed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EconLit, and PsycINFO between January 2000 and May 2010. Results A total of 37 studies were included in the review. These studies predominantly evaluated antidepressant medications. The analyses were performed across a broad set of countries. The majority of models were decision-trees; eight were Markov models. Most models had a time horizon of less than 1 year. The majority of analyses took a payer perspective. Clinical input data were obtained from pooled placebo-controlled comparative trials, single head-to-head trials, or meta-analyses. The majority of studies (24 of 37) used treatment success or symptom-free days as main outcomes, 14 studies incorporated health state utilities, and 2 used disability-adjusted life-years. A few models (14 of 37) incorporated probabilities and costs associated with suicide and/or suicide attempts. Two models examined the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment in patients who had failed to respond to initial therapy. Resource use data used in the models were obtained mostly from expert opinion. All studies, with the exception of one, explored parameter uncertainty. Conclusions The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.

A growing body of literature has highlighted the importance of considering patient preferences as part of the medical decision-making process. The purpose of the current review was to identify and summarize published research on preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and its treatment, while suggesting directions for future research. A literature search identified 15 articles that included a choice-based assessment of preferences related to ADHD. The 15 studies were grouped into four categories based on preference content: preference for a treatment directly experienced by the respondent or the respondent's child; preference for general treatment approaches; preference for a specific treatment attribute or outcome; and preference for aspects of ADHD-related treatment. Preference assessment methods ranged from global single items to detailed choice-based procedures, with few studies using rigorously developed assessment methods. Respondents included patients with ADHD, clinicians, parents, teachers, and survey respondents from the general population. Factors influencing preference include treatment characteristics, effectiveness for specific symptoms, side effects, and respondent demographics. Minimal research has examined treatment preferences of adults with ADHD. Because there is no dominant treatment known to be the first choice for all patients, ADHD is a condition for which individual preferences can play an important role when making treatment decisions for individual patients. Given the potential role of preferences in clinical decision-making, more research is needed to better understand the preferences of patients with ADHD and other individuals who are directly affected by the disorder, such as parents and teachers.

Background Children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often have a co-occurring reading disorder (RD). The purpose of this research was to assess differences between children with ADHD without RD (ADHD-only) and those with ADHD and co-occurring RD (ADHD+RD). Methods Using data from the U.S. Thomson Reuter Marketscan ® Databases for the years 2005 through 2007, this analysis compared the medical records--including patient demographics, comorbidities, and medication use--of children (age < 18) with ADHD-only to those with ADHD+RD. Results Patients with ADHD+RD were significantly younger, more likely to have received a procedure code associated with formal psychological or non-psychological testing, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbid bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, or depression. They were no more likely to have received an antidepressant, anti-manic (bipolar), or antipsychotic, and were significantly less likely to have received a prescription for a stimulant medication. Conclusions Relying on a claims database, there appear to be differences in the patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use when comparing children with ADHD-only to those with ADHD+RD.

Background Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is characterized by progressive limitations on physical activity, right heart failure, and premature death. The World Health Organization functional classification (WHO-FC) is a clinician-rated assessment used widely to assess PAH severity and functioning, but no equivalent patient-reported version of PAH symptoms and activity limitations exists. We developed a version of the WHO-FC for self-completion by patients: the Pulmonary Hypertension Functional Classification Self-Report (PH-FC-SR). Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with three health care providers (HCPs) via telephone to inform development of the draft PH-FC-SR. Two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 US patients with a self-reported PAH diagnosis via telephone/online to elicit concepts and iteratively refine the PH-FC-SR. Results HCPs reported that the WHO-FC was a useful tool for evaluating patients’ PAH severity over time and for making treatment decisions but acknowledged that use of the measure is subjective. Patients in round 1 interviews (n = 6) reported PAH symptoms, including shortness of breath (n = 6), fatigue (n = 5), syncope (n = 5), chest pains (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 3). Round 1 patients identified challenges with the original WHO-FC, including comprehensibility of clinical terms and overlapping descriptions of class II and III, and preferred the Draft 1 PH-FC-SR over the original WHO-FC. After minor changes were made to Draft 2, round 2 interviews (n = 8) confirmed patients understood the PH-FC-SR class descriptions, interpreting them consistently. Conclusions The HCP and patient interviews identified and confirmed certain limitations inherent within the clinician-rated WHO-FC, including subjective assessment and overlapping definitions for class II and III. The PH-FC-SR includes patient-appropriate language, symptoms, and physical activity impacts relevant to patients with PAH. Future research is recommended to validate the PH-FC-SR and explore its correlation with the physician-assessed WHO-FC and other outcomes.