Prevalence, Incidence, and Treatment Characteristics of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Jonathan S Myers,1 Elizabeth A Donckels,2 Tigwa H Davis,2 Scott B Robinson,2 Zulkarnain Pulungan,2 Teresa L Brevetti,3 Joel Fain,3 Abhishek A Nair4 1Glaucoma Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Insights, Inovalon, Bowie, MD, USA; 3Medical Affairs, Bausch + Lomb U.S., Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 4Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bausch + Lomb U.S., Bridgewater, NJ, USACorrespondence: Abhishek A Nair, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bausch + Lomb U.S., Bridgewater, NJ, USA, Email Abhishek.Nair@bausch.comPurpose: This study aimed to describe Medicare FFS beneficiaries with prevalent and incident POAG, and to determine their demographic characteristics. Secondary objectives included describing POAG prescription rates, prescribers of POAG therapy, and dry eye disease rates among POAG prevalent beneficiaries.Patients and Methods: The study was a retrospective cohort analysis using de-identified Medicare FFS medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment data (Parts A/B/D) spanning from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. Medicare FFS beneficiaries were included in the analysis if they were diagnosed or treated for POAG, 65 years of age or older, and continuously enrolled for at least 24 months. Beneficiaries were identified between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021, allowing for a 12-month baseline to categorize patients as incident or prevalent. Comorbid dry eye disease and prescription POAG therapies were also identified. Prescriber NPIs were used to classify prescriber types.Results: From 2017 to 2021, 5.5– 6.2% of Medicare FFS beneficiaries were identified with prevalent POAG, with ~1% categorized as incident. A higher proportion of POAG beneficiaries were older and/or Black. At least 81% received POAG prescription therapy each year, with ophthalmologists as most frequent prescribers. Comorbid dry eye was documented in 16.4– 18.7% of beneficiaries with prevalent POAG, and in 11.8– 13.6% of beneficiaries with incident POAG.Conclusion: A significant proportion of Medicare FFS beneficiaries have POAG. While most people with POAG received some type of prescription therapy each year, a notable proportion of individuals had no form of prescription POAG therapy identified. Given higher rates of dry eye disease in people with glaucoma, dry eye disease screening and care among beneficiaries with POAG should be promoted. Future research should evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes among Medicare FFS beneficiaries with comorbid POAG and dry eye disease.Keywords: dry eye, glaucoma, race/ethnicity, prevalence, medicare, topical therapy
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».