Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Clinical Epidemiology Study Who benefits? How do we know? B Lynn Beattie MD FRCPC Professor Emeritus Div Geri Med, Dept Med, UBC Medical Director UBCH.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Clinical Epidemiology Study Who benefits? How do we know? B Lynn Beattie MD FRCPC Professor Emeritus Div Geri Med, Dept Med, UBC Medical Director UBCH."— Presentation transcript:

1 Clinical Epidemiology Study Who benefits? How do we know? B Lynn Beattie MD FRCPC Professor Emeritus Div Geri Med, Dept Med, UBC Medical Director UBCH CARD

2 Low-income subset of the cohort from the Utilization and Cost Study Policy begins Low-income people* ChEI use No use: Historical Controls *On MSP premium subsidy

3 70% increase among poor a) Impact on Low-income Cohort (n = 24,253) …vs 30% increase in all BC

4 Rate of contacts with physicians: Low-income cohort vs all of BC Low Income: Policy cohort Historical control All BC: Policy cohort Historical control No impact BC linked data for

5 Rate of entry to long-term or palliative care: Low-income vs all of BC Low Income: Policy cohort Historical control No impact BC linked data for

6 Rate of hospitalizations: Low-income cohort vs all of BC Low Income: Policy cohort Historical control No impact BC linked data for

7 b) Special Authority data: Changes in Clinical Measures New users of ChEI (naïve) Continuing users (non-naïve) Problem: No SMMSE data collected before policy.

8 Initial Special Authority Form

9 Renewal Special Authority Form – Overall Patient Assessment Rating OPAR

10 Change in SMMSE scores over 6 mo SMMSE Change First SMMSE Low scorers, who score below 10 at 6 months, do not submit SA forms High scorers cannot score much higher Naïve: new users of ChEIs (n = 1094) Middle of graph is relatively free of bias

11 Change in SMMSE scores over 6 mo SMMSE Change First SMMSE Low scorers, who score below 10 at 6 months, do not submit SA forms High scorers cannot score much higher Non-naïve: Continuing users (n = 1584) Middle of graph is relatively free of bias

12 Changes in SMMSE scores naïve continuing SMMSE Change Difference : (95% CI: ) SMMSE Change Naïve improved by half a point more than Non-Naive.

13 Change in GDS by first SMMSE naïve continuing Difference:0.05 (95% CI: ) GDS Change GDS Change Naïve achieved 5% of a GDS point more than Non-Naïve

14 OPAR compared by first SMMSE naïve continuing Difference: 0.23 (95% CI: ) OPAR OPAR Naive achieved a quarter of a point more on OPAR than Non-Naive

15 Conclusions In real-world usage of ChEIs, there is evidence of clinical improvement, based on measurements by frontline physicians. This is consistent with the pivotal trials, most of which were 6 months RCTs. Value of OPAR will be looked at further. We look forward to the evidence on longer- term effects of ChEIs.


Download ppt "Clinical Epidemiology Study Who benefits? How do we know? B Lynn Beattie MD FRCPC Professor Emeritus Div Geri Med, Dept Med, UBC Medical Director UBCH."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google