Long-term medication adherence and preventive vs reactive care utilization among older adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess long-term adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and determine if adherence affects total health care expenditures of reactive vs preventive services. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: This study measured adherence to OHAs using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2013-2017 data. Adults 65 years and older who had diabetes and were taking at least 1 OHA were included. Respondents with a medication possession ratio (MPR) of at least 80% were considered adherent. Health care utilization and expenditure were compared among adherent and nonadherent respondents for preventive and reactive services. Utilization data were analyzed using negative binomial regression and expenditure data using γ-family generalized linear regression models. RESULTS: Approximately 67% of the cohort (n = 1279) were adherent. The adherent group had greater health care expenditure overall than nonadherent respondents ($29,985 [95% CI, $27,161-$32,743] vs $24,623 [95% CI, $21,623-$28,122]; P < .05). Although expenditure was higher for prescription medications and office visits, mean emergency department expenditures were higher for adherent respondents. The utilization and proportion of expenditure on preventive vs reactive health care services did not differ by adherence as defined by an MPR of at least 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing adherence provides an opportunity to improve CMS quality ratings. Our finding that adherence does not affect the financial burden of disease might be explained by the increased costs of preventive medication and increased comorbidity burden of these patients. Low adherence to OHAs encourages clinicians to be more proactive in ensuring that prescription medications are refilled regularly. By emphasizing equitable diabetes education and tailoring quality initiatives that minimize racial disparities, adherence can be better achieved.

Safety and Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

The potential increased risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) post-influenza vaccine is a concern in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies reporting the effects of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer during ICI treatment. We searched five electronic databases until 01/2022. Two authors independently selected studies, appraised their quality, and collected data. The primary outcome was the determination of pooled irAE rates. Secondary outcomes included determination of immunogenicity and influenza infection rates and cancer-related outcomes. Nineteen studies (26 publications, n = 4705) were included; 89.5% were observational. Vaccinated patients reported slighter lower rates of irAEs compared to unvaccinated patients (32% versus 41%, respectively). Seroprotection for influenza type A was 78%-79%, and for type B was 75%. Influenza and irAE-related death rates were similar between groups. The pooled proportion of participants reporting a laboratory-confirmed infection was 2% (95% CI 0% to 6%), and influenza-like illness was 14% (95% CI 2% to 32%). No differences were reported on the rates of laboratory-confirmed infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Longer progression-free and overall survival was also observed in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. Current evidence suggests that influenza vaccination is safe in patients receiving ICIs, does not increase the risk of irAEs, and may improve survival.

Polypharmacy and Cognition Function Among Rural Adults.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy (using≥5 medications) is associated with poor health outcomes. Mixed results from past studies surrounding chronic medication use, control of chronic conditions, and their effects on cognitive performance warrant further attention. OBJECTIVE: Investigate a link between polypharmacy and cognition function in rural-dwelling adults in Texas, USA. METHODS: Project FRONTIER (Facing Rural Obstacles to Healthcare Now Through Intervention, Education & Research) is a cross-sectional epidemiological study using community-based participatory research in three counties of Texas. Residents age > 40 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is cognitive impairment, and exposures of interest are polypharmacy; comorbidities; and diabetes, hypertension, and depression medication. Logistic regression was used to assess association. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-nine individuals participated; the mean age was 61, and the majority were female (68.7%).The median number of medications taken by participants was 3.3 (IQR: 0-5); the rate of polypharmacy was 29.6%. Anti-hypertensive agents were the most common medications (15%) used. Polypharmacy users were 2.84 times more likely to have cognitive impairment [OR: 2.84, 95%CI (1.32-6.09)] than those using < 5 medications. Participants on hypertensive medications had 1.85 times higher odds [OR: 1.85, 95%CI (1.14-3.01)] of having cognitive impairment than those who did not have cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy increases the odds of cognitive impairment. The odds of presenting with cognitive impairment increased as the number of medications increased. Additionally, we identified a large, concerning number of participants with pharmacotherapy and poor chronic disease management. A larger study should examine medication adherence among rural elders to manage chronic disease and any healthcare barriers to adherence.

Cost-utility analysis of treatment options after initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued initial treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 2 approaches are commonly used: cycling to another TNFi or switching to a drug with another mechanism of action. Currently, there is no consensus on which approach to use first. A report from the IBM MarketScan Research administrative claims database showed adalimumab (cycling strategy) and abatacept (switching strategy) were more commonly prescribed after the first TNFi discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adalimumab versus abatacept in patients with RA whose initial TNFi therapy failed. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-utility microsimulation state-transition model was used. Our target population was commercially insured adults with RA, the time horizon was 10 years, and we used a payer perspective. Patients not responding to adalimumab or abatacept were moved to the next drug in a sequence of 3 and, finally, to conventional synthetic therapy. Incremental cost-utility ratios (2016 USD per quality-adjusted-life-year gained [QALY)] were calculated. Utilities were derived from a formula based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and age-adjusted comorbidity score. RESULTS: Switching to abatacept after the first TNFi showed an incremental cost of just more than $11,300 over 10 years and achieved a QALY benefit of 0.16 compared with adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68,950 per QALY. Scenario analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range of $44,573 per QALY to $148,558 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to abatacept after TNFi therapy failure had an 80.6% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to abatacept is a cost-effective strategy for patients with RA whose discontinue initial therapy with TNFi. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award (principal investigator: Maria A. Lopez-Olivo). Karpes Matusevich's work was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Award from the University of Texas, School of Public Health Office of Research. Lal reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (employed by Optum). Suarez-Almazor reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Agile Therapeutics, Amag Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead). Chan, Swint, and Cantor have nothing to disclose.

Treatment Sequences After Discontinuing a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Comparison of Cycling Versus Swapping Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sequences of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and non-TNFi used by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients whose initial TNFi therapy has failed, and to evaluate effectiveness and costs. METHODS: Using the Truven Health MarketScan Research database, we analyzed claims of commercially insured adult patients with RA who switched to their second biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between January 2008 and December 2015. Our primary outcome was the frequency of treatment sequences. Our secondary outcomes were the time to therapy discontinuation, drug adherence, and drug and other health care costs. RESULTS: Among 10,442 RA patients identified, 36.5% swapped to a non-TNFi drug, most commonly abatacept (54.2%). The remaining 63.5% cycled to a second TNFi, most commonly adalimumab (41.2%). For subsequent switches of therapy, non-TNFi were more common. Patients who swapped to a non-TNFi were significantly older and had more comorbidities than those who cycled to a TNFi (P < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a longer time to discontinuation for non-TNFi than for TNFi (median 605 days compared with 489 days; P < 0.001) when used after initial TNFi discontinuation, but no difference in subsequent switches of therapy. Although non-TNFi were less expensive for adherent patients, cycling to a TNFi was associated with lower costs overall. CONCLUSION: Even though patients are more likely to cycle to a second TNFi than swap to a non-TNFi, those who swap to a non-TNFi are more likely to persist with the therapy. However, cycling to a TNFi is the less costly strategy.

Shorter length of hospital stay for hip fracture in those with dementia and without a known diagnosis of osteoporosis in the USA.

BACKGROUND: About 50% of all hospitalized fragility fracture cases in older Americans are hip fractures. Approximately 3/4 of fracture-related costs in the USA are attributable to hip fractures, and these are mostly covered by Medicare. Hip fracture patients with dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, have worse health outcomes including longer hospital length of stay (LOS) and charges. LOS and hospital charges for dementia patients are usually higher than for those without dementia. Research describing LOS and acute care charges for hip fractures has mostly focused on these outcomes in trauma patients without a known pre-admission diagnosis of osteoporosis (OP). Lack of documented diagnosis put patients at risk of not having an appropriate treatment plan for OP. Whether having a diagnosis of OP would have an effect on hospital outcomes in dementia patients has not been explored. We aim to investigate whether having a diagnosis of OP, dementia, or both has an effect on LOS and hospital charges. In addition, we also report prevalence of common comorbidities in the study population and their effects on hospital outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of claims data (2012-2013) for 2175 Medicare beneficiaries (≥65 years) in the USA. RESULTS: Compared to those without OP or dementia, patients with demenia only had a shorter LOS (by 5%; P = .04). Median LOS was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-7), and the median hospital charges were $45,100 (IQR: 31,500 - 65,600). In general, White patients had a shorter LOS (by 7%), and those with CHF and ischemic heart disease (IHD) had longer LOS (by 7 and 4%, respectively). Hospital charges were 6% lower for women, and 16% lower for White patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first study evaluating LOS in dementia in the context of hip fracture which also disagrees with previous reporting about longer LOS in dementia patients. Patients with CHF and IHD remains at high risk for longer LOS regardless of their diagnosis of dementia or OP.

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Cycling Versus Swapping Medications in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis After Failure to Respond to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the modeling approaches and quality of economic analyses comparing cycling tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) to swapping to a therapy with a different mode of action in patients with rheumatoid arthritis whose initial TNFi failed. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, gray literature, and references of included publications until July 2017. Two reviewers independently screened citations. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Data regarding modeling methodology were extracted. RESULTS: We included 7 articles comprising 19 comparisons. Three studies scored ≥16 of 24 on the CHEERS checklist. Most models used a lifetime horizon, took a payer perspective, employed a 6-month cycle length, and measured treatment efficacy in terms of the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria. We noted possible sources of bias in terms of transparency and study sponsorship. In the cost-utility comparisons, the median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US $70,332 per quality-adjusted life-year for swapping versus cycling strategies. Rituximab was more effective and less expensive than TNFi in 7 of 11 comparisons. Abatacept (intravenous) compared to TNFi was less cost-effective than rituximab. Common influential parameters in sensitivity analyses were the rituximab dosing schedule, assumptions regarding disease progression, and the estimation of utilities. CONCLUSION: Differences in the design, key assumptions, and model structure chosen had a major impact on the individual study conclusions. Despite the existence of multiple reporting standards, there continues to be a need for more uniformity in the methodology reported in economic evaluations of cycling versus swapping strategies after TNFi in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Systematic Review of Recommendations on the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate consensus recommendations regarding management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with cancer. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, guideline registries, and relevant web sites for cancer-specific recommendations on RA management. Reviewers independently selected and appraised the recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. We identified similarities and discrepancies among recommendations. RESULTS: Of 4,077 unique citations, 39 recommendations were identified, of which half described their consensus process. Average scores for the AGREE II domains ranged from 33% to 87%. Cancer risk in RA was addressed in 79% of recommendations, with acknowledgement of increased overall cancer risk. Recommendations did not agree on the safety of using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients with cancer, except for the contraindication of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients at risk for lymphoma. Most recommendations agreed that RA treatment should be stopped and re-evaluated with a new diagnosis of cancer. Recommendations for patients with a history of cancer differed depending on the drug, cancer type, and time since cancer diagnosis. Few recommendations addressed all issues. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for the treatment of RA in patients with cancer often fail to meet expected methodologic criteria. There was agreement on the need for caution when prescribing DMARDs to these patients. However, several areas continue to lack consensus, and given the paucity of evidence, there is an urgent need for research and expert opinion to guide and standardize the management of RA in patients with cancer.