Patients' access to rare neuromuscular disease therapies varies across US private insurers.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which different US private insurers require their enrollees to meet the same coverage criteria before gaining access to treatment is unclear. Our objective was to scrutinize the patient access criteria imposed by US private insurers for a set of rare neuromuscular disease (NMD) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). METHODS: We examined coverage policies issued by 17 large US private insurers for the following NMD treatments: nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy, edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We reviewed the plans' coverage policies and identified the patient access criteria, including clinical prerequisites, step therapy protocols, and prescriber requirements. We compared the plans' patient access criteria with the therapies' US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-labeled indications. RESULTS: The included insurers issued 65 coverage policies for the included therapies. Plans imposed coverage restrictions beyond the FDA-approved indications in 60 coverage policies; plans did not cover eteplirsen in five policies. No therapy was covered the same way by all insurers. Plans applied clinical criteria beyond the FDA label indication in 56 policies and step therapy protocols in three policies. Plans required that a neurologist prescribe the therapy in 37 policies, 22 of which required the neurologist to have expertise in the particular disease. Plans often required patients to suffer from symptoms of particular severity; e.g. for eteplirsen, plans differed in their 6-min walk test requirements; for edaravone, some plans required that patients had normal respiratory function, while others required only that patients did not require ventilation; for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec, plans differed in the number of SMN2 gene copies they required patients to have (SMN2 copy number is correlated with disease severity). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated large US private insurers tended to impose coverage restrictions beyond the FDA label indication for the included set of rare NMD DMTs. Plans rarely applied the same patient access criteria in their coverage policies for the same products. Inconsistent coverage criteria mean that patients with different insurers have variable access to the same therapies across insurers.

Adherence to and Persistence with Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis Over 24 Months: A Retrospective Claims Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to assess adherence to and persistence with ocrelizumab (OCR) compared with other disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), by route of administration (RoA), for multiple sclerosis (MS) after 24 months in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis of MS patients initiating a new DMT was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases between April 2016 and December 2019. Continuous enrollment of ≥ 12 months before and up to 24 months after initiating the index DMT was required. Adherence was assessed based on proportion of days covered (PDC) in the follow-up period with values ≥ 80% considered adherent. Persistence was defined as no evidence of switching to another DMT or no gap ≥ 60 days in DMT coverage. RESULTS: A total of 1710 patients with ≥ 24 months of follow-up (OCR, n = 524; oral, n = 701; injectable, n = 365; other intravenous [IV], n = 120) were included. Patients initiating OCR had higher adherence (80% vs. 55%, 35%, and 54% for oral, injectable, and other IV, respectively) and persistence (75% vs. 54%, 33%, and 55%, respectively) at 24 months. Relative risks (RRs) of 24-month non-adherence for those initiating orals, injectables, and other IVs were 2.2 (95% CI, 1.7-2.9), 3.0 (95% CI, 2.2-4.0), and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.3), respectively, compared to those initiating OCR. Similarly, patients receiving orals, injectables, and other IVs had RR of 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4-2.4), 2.5 (95% CI, 1.9-3.4), and 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6) for 24-month discontinuation, respectively. Similar patterns were observed at 12 and 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating OCR in a real-world setting achieved higher rates of adherence and persistence at 24 months compared with those initiating other DMTs, consistent with published literature showing similar results at 12 and 18 months. Optimizing medication adherence and persistence is fundamental to MS care, so clinicians should consider all elements of DMTs that may improve compliance.

Persistence and adherence to ocrelizumab compared with other disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis in U.S. commercial claims data.

BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab (OCR) is the only disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for both relapsing and primary progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). OCR is given by intravenous (IV) infusion twice a year, which may improve adherence to the dosing schedule relative to other MS DMTs that require more frequent administration. Real-world evidence on the persistence and adherence of patients with MS to OCR compared with other DMTs is limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine the persistence and adherence to OCR compared with other DMTs for MS in the United States. METHODS: This analysis was conducted in the PharMetrics Plus commercial claims database and included patients with MS who initiated a new DMT between April 2017 and September 2018. Patients were required to have health plan enrollment for ≥ 1 year before and after DMT initiation (a subgroup analysis was performed for those with ≥ 18 months' continuous enrollment after DMT initiation). Persistence was defined as not switching to another DMT and having no gap in coverage of the initiated DMT for ≥ 60 days during the postinitiation period. The proportion of days covered (PDC) was calculated as the total days covered by the DMT during the postinitiation period divided by the length of the time period (12 or 18 months); PDC ≥ 0.8 was considered adherent. Multivariable Poisson regression models compared discontinuation (nonpersistence) and nonadherence between OCR users and users of other DMTs grouped by administration route. RESULTS: A total of 4,587 patients (OCR, 1,319; injectable, 1,051; oral, 1,876; other IV, 341) were included. The OCR group had the lowest proportion of patients discontinuing at 12 months (8% vs. 28%, 32%, and 43% for other IV, oral, and injectable, respectively) and the highest mean PDC (93% vs. 76%, 74%, and 69%, respectively). Compared with patients initiating OCR, adjusted relative risks (RR) of 12-month discontinuation were 3.3 (95% CI = 2.3-4.6), 3.8 (95% CI = 3.0-4.9), and 5.5 (95% CI = 4.1-7.5) for patients initiating other IV, oral, and injectable DMTs, respectively. Similarly, patients initiating other IV, oral, and injectable DMTs had RRs of 4.9 (95% CI = 3.6-6.8), 5.1 (95% CI = 3.9-6.6), and 6.8 (95% CI = 5.0-9.3) for 12-month nonadherence compared with OCR. A subgroup of 2,913 patients with 18 months of continuous enrollment had similar trends, with 17% in the OCR group discontinuing compared with 40%, 41%, and 55% in the other IV, oral, and injectable groups, respectively. Trends over 18 months were consistent with the 12-month analysis in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating OCR had superior persistence and adherence at 12 and 18 months of follow-up compared with patients initiating other MS DMTs. Long-term persistence and adherence should be monitored as OCR experience accrues in a real-world setting. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech (South San Francisco, CA), a member of the Roche Group. Engmann, Sheinson, Bawa, and Ng are employees of Genentech and shareholders of F. Hoffman-La Roche (Basel, Switzerland).

Evaluation of an institution-wide guideline for hyperglycemic emergencies at a tertiary academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies exist examining implementation of an institution-wide guideline and order set for hyperglycemic emergencies (diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA] and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state [HHS]). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of an institutional guideline and order set for hyperglycemic emergencies. METHODS: This retrospective descriptive study evaluated patients with a diagnosis of DKA or HHS. Two time periods were evaluated: phase 1 (PRE) assessed practice preguideline implementation, and phase 2 (POST) assessed practice postguideline and order set introduction. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients (91 PRE and 81 POST) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in the mean hospital length of stay (LOS) in the PRE versus POST groups (5.2 ± 4 vs 5.9 ± 8.6 days, P = .49). The mean intensive care unit (ICU) LOS was shorter in the POST group (64.8 ± 19 vs 37.1 ± 74.8 hours, P < .01). The POST group had an increase in frequency of assessments for clearance of urinary ketones (18 vs 33.3%, P = .03) and ß-hydroxybutyrate (16 vs 37%, P < .01). Frequency of point-of-care glucose testing (12.5 ± 4.6 vs 15.1 ± 4.7, P < .01) and time to anion gap closure (13 ± 9 vs 9.3 ± 7.4 hours, P < .01) improved in the POST group. There was no difference in the number of patients experiencing hypoglycemia or hypokalemia between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an institutional guideline and order set for hyperglycemic emergencies decreased ICU LOS and time to anion gap closure, with no difference in rates of hypoglycemia.