Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"A one-of-a-kind, up-to-date guide to skillfully blending business and aviation issues to provide solid decision-making strategies and smart operating practices for the establishment and management of business aircraft\"--Provided by publisher.

Previous studies have assessed the incremental economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (i.e., non-TRD MDD) in commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured patients, but none have focused on Medicare-insured patients. To assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with TRD versus non-TRD MDD or without major depressive disorder (MDD; i.e., non-MDD) in a Medicare-insured population. Adult patients were retrospectively identified from the Chronic Condition Warehouse de-identified 100% Medicare database (01/2010-12/2016). MDD was defined as ≥1 MDD diagnosis and ≥1 claim for an antidepressant. Patients initiated on a third antidepressant following two antidepressant treatment regimens of adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined as the date of the first antidepressant claim for the TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts, and as a randomly imputed date for the non-MDD cohort. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to non-TRD MDD patients and randomly selected non-MDD patients based on propensity scores. Analyses were also performed for a subset of patients aged ≥65. Of 29,543 patients with MDD, 3,225 (10.9%) met the study definition of TRD; 157,611 were included in the non-MDD cohort. Matched patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD were, on average, 58.9 and 59.0 years old, respectively. The TRD cohort had higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HRU than the non-TRD MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36) and non-MDD cohorts (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.84, all P<0.001). The TRD cohort had significantly higher total PPPY healthcare costs than the non-TRD MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $20,425, adjusted cost difference = $3,385) and non-MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $14,542, adjusted cost difference = $4,015, all P<0.001). Similar results were found for the subset of patients ≥65. Among Medicare-insured patients, those with TRD had higher HRU and costs compared to those with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

The economic burden of commercially insured patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression and patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder was compared using data from the Optum Clinformatics[TM] claims database. 2,370 treatment-resistant depression and 9,289 non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients were included. In year 1 of the follow-up period, compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, patients with treatment-resistant depression had: more emergency department visits (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.56); more inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.05); longer hospital stays (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = 2.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-4.86 days); and more total healthcare costs (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = US 3,846, 95% confidence interval = 2,855-4,928). These patterns remained consistent in year 2 of the follow-up period. Treatment-resistant depression was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and costs versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in this commercially insured cohort of patients in the United States.

Background Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) may represent a substantial proportion of major depressive disorder (MDD); however, the risk of mortality in TRD is still incompletely assessed. Methods Data were obtained from Optum Clinformatics™ Extended, a US claims database. Date of the first antidepressant (AD) dispensing was designated as the index date for study entry and 6 months prior to that was considered the baseline period. Patients with MDD aged ≥ 18 years, index date between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2015, no AD claims during baseline, and continuous enrollment in the database during baseline were included. Patients who started a third AD regimen after two regimens of appropriate duration were included in the TRD cohort. All-cause mortality was compared between patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD using a proportional hazards model and Kaplan–Meier estimate with TRD status being treated as a time-varying covariate. The model was adjusted for study year, age, gender, depression diagnosis, substance use disorder, psychiatric comorbidities, and Charlson comorbidity index. Results Out of 355,942 patients with MDD, 34,176 (9.6%) met the criterion for TRD. TRD was associated with a significantly higher mortality compared with non-TRD MDD (adjusted HR: 1.29; 95% CI 1.22–1.38; p  < 0.0001). Survival time was significantly shorter in the TRD cohort compared with the non-TRD MDD cohort ( p  < 0.0001). Conclusions Patients with TRD had a higher all-cause mortality compared with non-TRD MDD patients.

Background Despite the availability of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options, depression continues to be one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. This study evaluated whether depression symptom severity, as measured by PHQ-9 score, of patients diagnosed with MDD is associated with short-term risk of a hospital encounter (ER visit or inpatient stay). Methods Adults with ≥1 PHQ-9 assessment in an outpatient setting (index date) and ≥ 1 MDD diagnosis within 6 months prior were included from the de-identified Optum Electronic Health Record database (April 2016–June 2019). Patients were categorized by depression symptom severity based on PHQ-9 scores obtained by natural language processing. Crude rates, adjusted absolute risks, and adjusted relative risks of all-cause and MDD-related hospital encounters within 30 days following assessment of depression severity were determined. Results The study population consisted of 280,145 patients with MDD and ≥ 1 PHQ-9 assessment in an outpatient setting. Based on PHQ-9 scores, 26.9% of patients were categorized as having none/minimal depression symptom severity, 16.4% as mild, 24.7% as moderate, 19.6% as moderately severe, and 12.5% as severe. Among patients with none/minimal, mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, the adjusted absolute short-term risks of an initial all-cause hospital encounter were 4.1, 4.4, 4.8, 5.6, and 6.5%, respectively; MDD-related hospital encounter adjusted absolute risks were 0.8, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6, and 2.1%, respectively. Compared to patients with none/minimal depression symptom severity, the adjusted relative risks of an all-cause hospital encounter were 1.60 (95% CI 1.50–1.70) for those with severe, 1.36 (1.29–1.44) for those with moderately severe, 1.18 (1.12–1.25) for those with moderate, and 1.07 (1.00–1.13) for those with mild depression symptom severity. Conclusions These study findings indicate that depression symptom severity is a key driver of short-term risk of hospital encounters, emphasizing the need for timely interventions that can ameliorate depression symptom severity.

Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) fail to respond to antidepressant (AD) pharmacotherapy. The objectives of this study were to characterize MDD and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) at the level of pharmacologically treated episodes and to describe the sequential treatment patterns by lines of therapy (LOT) in the first two episodes. Adults (≥18 years of age) with continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the first MDD diagnosis and treated with an AD, with or without an MDD-indicated antipsychotic (AP), were identified (1/1/2010-12/31/2015). The MDD episode started on the date of MDD diagnosis that was preceded by a clean period without any MDD diagnosis. The MDD episode ended on the last MDD diagnosis or the end of the days' supply of AD/AP medication, whichever came last. TRD was defined as an MDD episode with ≥3 AD/AP regimens. Measured outcomes included episode duration, number of LOT, relapse hospitalization, and sequential treatment patterns of MDD episode stratified by TRD and non-TRD episodes. Of 48,440 patients who received AD/AP in the 1st MDD episode, 3,317 (6.8%) of episodes were considered TRD. Mean duration of 1st TRD episodes was 571 days, mean number of AD/AP LOTs was 3.47, and 13.7% involved relapse hospitalization. Mean duration of 1st non-TRD episodes was 200 days, mean number of AD/AP LOTs was 1.21, and 9.6% involved relapse hospitalization. Among 1st MDD episodes, 25.5% had a second LOT; 7.3% had a third LOT. Most patients received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as the first LOT (63.0%), and the plurality of regimens were SSRIs in second (44.9%) and third LOT (41.1%). Compared to non-TRD episodes, TRD episodes were longer and more often involved relapse hospitalizations. SSRIs were the most common treatment; treatment changes and potential treatment unresponsiveness were frequent among MDD patients.

Background This retrospective study examined the humanistic burden of fatigue in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), compared with adults without MS, using data from the 2017 and 2019 US National Health and Wellness Survey. Methods The 5-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-5) was used to assess level of fatigue (MFIS-5 score <15: low fatigue [LF]; MFIS-5 score ≥15: high fatigue [HF]) in patients with RRMS. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2, Euroqol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels [EQ-5D-5L], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7], Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-5) and treatment-related characteristics were assessed. Results In total, 498 respondents were identified as RRMS ( n= 375 RRMS+LF, n= 123 RRMS+HF) and compared with 1,494 matched non-MS controls. RRMS+LF and RRMS+HF had significantly lower Short Form 6 Dimensions health utility, Mental and Physical Component Summary, and EQ-5D-5L scores and higher PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, compared with matched non-MS controls (all p< 0.001); scores were worse for RRMS+HF than RRMS+LF across all measures (all p< 0.001). A higher proportion of RRMS+HF reported moderate-to-severe depression and moderate-to-severe anxiety, compared with RRMS+LF and matched non-MS controls (both p< 0.001). Fatigue was a significant predictor of poor HRQoL across all measures (all p< 0.001). Conclusions Patients with RRMS experienced lower HRQoL with higher levels of fatigue, highlighting an unmet need. Results may help to inform physician-patient communication and shared decision-making to address fatigue and its associated impact on patients’ HRQoL.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223255.].

Assess the relationship between timely treatment intensification and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) control quality-of-care performance measures, i.e., HbA1C levels, among patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Electronic medical records and diabetes registry data from a large, accountable care organization (ACO) were used to isolate a sample of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who received at least one oral antidiabetes agent and had at least one HbA1C level measurement ≥8.0% (64 mmol/mol; i.e., uncontrolled diabetes) between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2015. Treatment intensification status was evaluated for each patient during a 120-day treatment intensification window following the index HbA1c measure. Two-level hierarchical generalized linear models, with patients aggregated at the physician level, were used to assess the association between treatment intensification and achieving HbA1C quality performance measures. 547 patients met study selection criteria and 480 patients had at least one HbA1C test after the treatment intensification window and were used for the statistical analyses. About 40% of patients who had uncontrolled diabetes received treatment intensification during the 120-day window. Greater index HbA1C, greater patient body mass index, and fewer unique pre-index oral antidiabetes agents were significantly associated with greater likelihood of receiving timely treatment intensification. The odds of receiving treatment intensification were about 1.8 times higher (P = 0.0027) among patients with poor index HbA1C control (HbA1c level >9.0% [75 mmol/mol]) compared to other patients (index HbA1c 8.0% - 9.0%). Hispanic patients (compared to White patients) were significantly more likely to exhibit poor control after treatment intensification (odds ratio [OR] 2.91, P = 0.0304), underscoring the difficulty of controlling diabetes in this vulnerable group. In contrast, being male and being treated primarily by an internist (compared to primary treatment by a family medicine specialist) were both significantly associated with achieving superior control (HbA1c level <8.0%) after treatment intensification (OR 0.53 [P = 0.0165]; OR 0.41 [P = 0.0275], respectively). Timely treatment intensification was significantly associated with greater likelihood of patients achieving superior HbA1C control (<8.0%) and better HbA1C control quality performance for the practice. Even in an ACO with resources dedicated to diabetes control, it is incumbent upon clinicians to readily identify and open dialogues with patients who may benefit from closely supervised, individualized attention.

Biofuel and bioenergy systems are integral to most climate stabilization scenarios for displacement of transport sector fossil fuel use and for producing negative emissions via carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, the net greenhouse gas mitigation benefit of such pathways is controversial due to concerns around ecosystem carbon losses from land use change and foregone sequestration benefits from alternative land uses. Here, we couple bottom-up ecosystem simulation with models of cellulosic biofuel production and CCS in order to track ecosystem and supply chain carbon flows for current and future biofuel systems, with comparison to competing land-based biological mitigation schemes. Analyzing three contrasting US case study sites, we show that on land transitioning out of crops or pasture, switchgrass cultivation for cellulosic ethanol production has per-hectare mitigation potential comparable to reforestation and severalfold greater than grassland restoration. In contrast, harvesting and converting existing secondary forest at those sites incurs large initial carbon debt requiring long payback periods. We also highlight how plausible future improvements in energy crop yields and biorefining technology together with CCS would achieve mitigation potential 4 and 15 times greater than forest and grassland restoration, respectively. Finally, we show that recent estimates of induced land use change are small relative to the opportunities for improving system performance that we quantify here. While climate and other ecosystem service benefits cannot be taken for granted from cellulosic biofuel deployment, our scenarios illustrate how conventional and carbon-negative biofuel systems could make a nearterm, robust, and distinctive contribution to the climate challenge.