Why the increase? Examining the rise in prescription medication expenditures in the United States between 2011 and 2020.

The objective of this cross-sectional analysis was to identify determinants of increasing medicine expenditures in the US between 2011 and 2020. Prescription medication expenditures from the 2011-2020 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) were used to calculate total annual medication expenditures by payer categories (Out-of-pocket, Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE/Veterans Administration/CHAMPVA (TVAC), Other Government Sources, Private Insurance, and Other Sources). From here, expenditures were stratified by therapeutic category using Multum Lexicon Drug Class to examine trends in expenditures by therapeutic area. Linear regression was used to identify temporal trends in medication expenditures. From 2011 to 2020, total annual prescription medication expenditures rose from $341.49 to $473.12 billion per year with metabolic agents being the most costly category. Among the metabolic agents, antidiabetic agents were the most costly therapeutic area, with an increasing trend observed from $27.15 to $89.17 billion over the same period. Medicare, Medicaid, Private Insurance, TVAC, and Other Sources also saw an increasing trend in antidiabetic agent expenditure, while no trend was observed for Out-of-pocket and Other Government Sources. Insulin had the highest expenditure among antidiabetic agents. Further studies are warranted to explore specific factors contributing to the increasing trend.

Leveraging prescription monitoring program data to evaluate the implementation of buprenorphine telehealth flexibilities: An interrupted time series analysis in Texas.

Background: In March 2020, policy changes by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration aimed to maintain access to office-based opioid treatment services by easing telehealth buprenorphine prescribing restrictions. However, the effectiveness of these changes remains largely unmeasured. The objective of this study was to measure the effectiveness of COVID-19-related telehealth flexibilities in an all-payer cohort from the Texas Prescription Monitoring Program. Methods: Using Texas Prescription Monitoring Program data, we identified oral buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions dispensed in Texas between September 1, 2019, and September 26, 2020. Weekly counts of prescriptions, prescribing physicians, and dispensing pharmacies were analyzed. An autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model estimated changes in prescription volume between pre-implementation (September 1, 2019 - February 15, 2020) and post-implementation (April 12, 2020 - September 26, 2020) periods. Results: Pre-flexibility, an average of 8898 (SD: 342) buprenorphine prescriptions were dispensed to 7829 (SD: 326) patients weekly. This declined to 8360 (SD: 247) prescriptions and 7661 (SD: 229) patients post-flexibility. Adjusted for seasonality, this represented a statistically significant average decline of -257.27 (95% CI: -426.06, -88.49) patients and -647.01 (95% CI: -856.67, -437.36) prescriptions per week. Discussion: Our results suggest a modest decline in buprenorphine dispensing volume early in the COVID-19 pandemic. While difficult to assess its significance, it can be assumed that telehealth flexibilities mitigated a potentially larger decline. Future research should explore system and individual-level barriers to telehealth utilization.

Protocol for the development of a consensus practice guideline To address clinical and regulatory barriers to buprenorphine dispensing in community pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Less than half of community pharmacies in the United States stock buprenorphine products indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder. This lack of access to buprenorphine in community pharmacies is a significant barrier to care. To address this issue, this protocol outlines a comprehensive approach to develop a practice guideline aimed at improving access to safe and effective opioid use disorder treatment in community pharmacies. METHODS: The guideline development process will proceed in three phases, following a technique closely aligned with the Institute of Medicine's guidance on guideline development. The first phase will involve conducting qualitative interviews with pharmacists in three states to identify their beliefs toward buprenorphine dispensing. As limitations on buprenorphine supply are related to constraints at all levels of the drug supply and regulatory system, the second phase, we will recruit representatives from regulatory agencies, pharmacy organizations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, pharmaceutical wholesalers as well as addiction medicine physicians and psychiatric pharmacists to develop consensus recommendations through a modified Delphi design. This will be followed by a public comment period and external expert review of the recommendations led by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. Finally, in the third phase, a national, mixed media dissemination campaign will be led by the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) to convey recommendations to practicing pharmacists. DISCUSSION: The guideline development process aims to incorporate the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and emphasize the importance of addressing the regulatory and pharmacy-specific aspects of care in addition to clinical evidence and guidance. The development of this guideline will provide targeted, multidisciplinary guidance for pharmacists, improving access to safe and effective opioid use disorder treatment in the community setting. PREREGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework in March of 2023. Registration may be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6S9DY .

Comparison of Prospective and Retrospective Methods of a Tigecycline Post-Marketing Surveillance Study in the Safety Outcomes of Patients with Complicated Skin Structure Infection, Complicated Intraabdominal Infection and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Safety data can be collected through prospective and retrospective methods during post-marketing surveillance (PMS). This study aimed to compare prospective and retrospective methods in terms of examining safety data from PMS of tigecycline. METHODS: This PMS study was an open-label, noncomparative, observational, noninterventional and multicenter study of patients who received tigecycline for infections. From July 2007 to April 2015, 3172 patients were included in this study, of which 738 were enrolled prospectively and 2434 retrospectively. To reduce selection bias, demographic and baseline characteristics were adjusted using 1:2 propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, data from 1446 patients were analyzed. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were determined to be significantly higher in the prospective method compared with those of the retrospective method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). However, no significant differences in the incidences of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and serious ADRs (SADRs) were detected between the two groups (P = 0.09 and P = 0.33, respectively). In a subgroup analysis of 360 patients from 14 hospitals involved in both prospective and retrospective methods, the incidence of AEs was found to be significantly higher using the prospective method compared with when the retrospective method was used (P < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in ADRs (P = 0.14), SAEs (P = 0.24) and SADRs. CONCLUSION: In general, the prospective method can detect safety data effectively in a PMS study, whereas retrospective data collection may be an alternative option in collecting ADR data when a prospective PMS study is not deemed feasible.