A Comparison of Seven Oncology External Control Arm Case Studies: Critiques From Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Agencies.

OBJECTIVES: The development of accelerated approval programs for high morbidity and unmet need conditions has driven the use of single-arm studies in drug development. Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are recognizing that high-quality external control arms (ECAs), built using real-world data, can reduce uncertainties arising from single-arm studies. This review compared 7 case studies of regulatory and HTA agencies' evaluations of oncology ECAs. METHODS: Food and Drug Administration multidisciplinary reviews for oncology submissions from 2014 to 2021 were screened to identify 7 cases (2 blinatumomab indications, avelumab, and erdafitinib, entrectinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan, and idecabtagene vicleucel) with ECAs to support efficacy claims. Regulatory (Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada) and HTA (pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Federal Joint Committee, Haute Autorité de Santé, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) submissions for these cases were reviewed. The decision makers' ECA critiques and the level of influence on the decision were analyzed and categorized. RESULTS: Across case studies, selection bias and confounding were the most common ECA critiques. Nevertheless, agreement in critiques between and among regulators and HTA bodies was low. ECA influence on agencies' decisions also varied. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the same ECA evidence, agencies focused on methodologic issues (ie, selection bias and confounding), but were often not aligned on their critiques. Further research is needed to fully characterize how agencies evaluate ECAs. This study is a first step in critically evaluating agencies' critiques of ECAs and highlights the need for future guidance development around ECA design and generation.

Impact of a pregabalin step therapy policy among medicare advantage beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Managed healthcare organizations often utilize formulary management strategies such as prior authorization and step therapy to guide appropriate medication use and to control medication expenditures. The objective of this study was to examine clinical and economic outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step therapy (ST) policy among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) members. METHODS: Pharmacy and medical claims data from Humana (restricted cohort; ST policy implemented 01/01/2009) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan(®) (unrestricted cohort) were analyzed for MAPD members aged 65 to 89 years receiving treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or fibromyalgia (FM). Difference-in-differences (DID) was used to examine year-over-year changes in disease-related and all-cause utilization and costs. Regression analyses examined medication utilization and healthcare expenditures after controlling for between-group compositional differences. RESULTS: We identified 13,911 members in the restricted cohort and matched to members from unrestricted health plans. FM (51.0%) and pDPN (41.8%) were the most common diagnoses. Members in the unrestricted cohort were older and had a greater level of comorbidity than members in the restricted cohort. The restricted cohort demonstrated greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization and increase in year-over-year gabapentin utilization compared with the unrestricted cohort. ST restriction was associated with an increase in disease-related pharmacy costs and a decrease in total medical costs for the restricted cohort compared with the unrestricted cohort. There was no difference between cohorts in total healthcare cost. CONCLUSION: After controlling for differences in age and comorbidity burden between the groups, implementation of a pregabalin ST restriction was associated with increased disease-related pharmacy costs and decreased total medical costs; however, there was no net difference in total healthcare cost or total pharmacy cost.

Association of teriparatide adherence and persistence with clinical and economic outcomes in Medicare Part D recipients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Improper medication adherence is associated with increased morbidity, healthcare costs, and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the healthcare utilization patterns of Medicare Part D beneficiaries newly initiating teriparatide, and to assess the association of medication adherence and persistence with bone fracture. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed medical and pharmacy claims of 761 Medicare members initiating teriparatide in 2008 and 2009. Baseline characteristics, healthcare use, and healthcare costs 12 and 24 months after teriparatide initiation, were summarized. Adherence, measured by Proportion of Days Covered (PDC), was categorized as high (PDC ≥ 80%), moderate (50% ≥ PDC < 80%), and low (PDC < 50%). Non-persistence was measured as refill gaps in subsequent claims longer than 60 days plus the days of supply from the previous claim. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated the association of adherence and persistence with fracture rates at 12 months. RESULTS: Within 12 months of teriparatide initiation, 21% of the cohort was highly-adherent. Low-adherent or non-persistent patients visited the ER more frequently than did their highly-adherent or persistent counterparts (χ2 = 5.01, p < 0.05 and χ2 = 5.84, p < 0.05), and had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($4,361 versus $13,472 and $4,757 versus $13,187, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, non-persistent patients had significantly lower total healthcare costs. The healthcare costs of highly-adherent patients were largely pharmacy-related. Similar patterns were observed in the 222 patients who had fractures at 12 months, among whom 89% of fracture-related costs were pharmacy-related. The regression models demonstrated no significant association of adherence or persistence with 12-month fractures. Six months before initiating teriparatide, 50.7% of the cohort had experienced at least 1 fracture episode. At 12 months, these patients were nearly 3 times more likely to have a fracture (OR = 2.9, 95% C.I. 2.1-4.1 p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to teriparatide therapy was suboptimal. Increased pharmacy costs seemed to drive greater costs among highly-adherent patients, whereas lower adherence correlated to greater ER utilization but not to greater costs. Having a fracture in the 6 months before teriparatide initiation increased fracture risk at follow-up.

Evaluation of VTE, MACE, and Serious Infections Among Patients with RA Treated with Baricitinib Compared to TNFi: A Multi-Database Study of Patients in Routine Care Using Disease Registries and Claims Databases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to evaluate baricitinib safety with respect to venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and serious infection relative to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients with RA from 14 real-world data sources (three disease registries, eight commercial and three government health insurance claims databases) in the United States (n = 9), Europe (n = 3), and Japan (n = 2) were analyzed using a new user active comparator design. Propensity score matching (1:1) controlled for potential confounding. Meta-analysis of incidence rate ratios (IRR) and incidence rate differences (IRD) for each outcome, from each data source was executed using modified Poisson regression and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis. RESULTS: Of 9013 eligible baricitinib-treated patients, 7606 were propensity score-matched with TNFi-treated patients, contributing 5879 and 6512 person-years of baricitinib and TNFi exposure, respectively. Across data sources, 97 patients (56 baricitinib) experienced VTE during follow-up, 93 experienced MACE (54 baricitinib), and 321 experienced serious infection (176 baricitinib). Overall IRRs comparing baricitinib with TNFi treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.10, 2.08) for VTE, 1.54 (95% CI 0.93, 2.54) for MACE, and 1.36 (95% CI 0.86, 2.13) for serious infection. IRDs for VTE, MACE, and serious infection, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI -0.04, 0.57), 0.22 (95% CI -0.07, 0.52), and 0.57 (95% CI -0.07, 1.21) per 100 person-years greater for baricitinib than TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results suggest increased risk of VTE with baricitinib versus TNFi, with consistent point estimates from the two largest data sources. A numerically greater risk was observed for MACE and serious infection when comparing baricitinib versus TNFi, with different point estimates from the two largest data sources. Findings from this study and their impact on clinical practice should be considered in context of limitations and other evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of baricitinib and other Janus kinase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS Register ( http://encepp.eu ), identifier #32271.

Real-world performance of SARS-Cov-2 serology tests in the United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation. METHODS: Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters. RESULTS: A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets. CONCLUSION: Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Real-world utilization of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing in RNA positive patients across the United States.

BACKGROUND: As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States. METHODS: Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets-limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources-a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.

Economic burden of joint analysis in psoriasis: US claims analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have assessed the economic burden of concomitant joint disease in patients with psoriasis (PSO). This analysis compared health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs in patients with PSO vs those with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective database analysis of US commercially insured patients with PSO or PsA. METHODS: Electronic health records (EHRs) and claims in Optum's deidentified Integrated Claims-Clinical data set from 2007 to 2018 were analyzed. Patients were followed up from the first PSO or PsA diagnosis for up to 5 years. Patients with claims or diagnosis codes in EHR data for PSO ("PSO only") were propensity score matched to patients with claims/diagnosis codes for both PSO and PsA ("PSO-PsA"). RESULTS: The matching algorithm generated 4418 matched patient pairs. During follow-up, PSO-PsA patients had greater HCRU than PSO-only patients, including more cumulative all-cause outpatient claims (P ≤ .05 at each year of follow-up). Mean total annual health care costs per patient were higher in PSO-PsA patients than PSO-only patients (PSO only: $14,546-$15,800 vs PSO-PsA: $21,581-$22,868; P < .05 at each year of follow-up). All-cause outpatient and pharmacy costs were also higher in the PSO-PsA cohort (P < .05 at each year of follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid joint disease in PSO is associated with greater costs and use of health care resources than PSO alone. These findings underscore the need for dermatologists to be vigilant about detection and treatment of joint symptoms. Early PsA diagnosis and therapy are crucial to improve patient outcomes and reduce the potential economic burden.

Clinical Burden of Concomitant Joint Disease in Psoriasis: A US-Linked Claims and Electronic Health Records Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the clinical burden of concomitant joint disease in patients with psoriasis (PSO). The objective of this study was to assess comorbidity rates in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with PSO alone. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of US patients with prevalent PSO. Linked medical claims and electronic health records (EHR) in Optum's de-identified Integrated Claims-Clinical dataset were analyzed from 2007 to 2018. Patients were followed for up to 5 years after the first claim/diagnostic code for PSO (index date). Baseline comorbidity prevalence and follow-up rates (cases per 1000 person-years) were assessed using descriptive statistics. Comorbidity rate analysis included patients with the respective comorbidity at baseline. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and comorbidity prevalence were numerically similar between patients with concomitant joint disease (PSO-PsA) and those with PSO alone (PSO-only). During follow-up, comorbidity rates were higher in patients in the PSO-PsA group than patients in the PSO-only group. Ratios of PSO-PsA comorbidity rates relative to PSO-only ranged from 1.1 for allergies and infections to 1.7 for fatigue, diabetes, and obesity. Comorbidity rate ratios increased from year 1 to year 5 for hypertension (1.05-1.34), hyperlipidemia (0.94-1.13), diabetes (1.00-1.49), cardiovascular disease (1.03-1.66), depression (0.97-1.19), and anxiety (0.87-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsA have a larger clinical burden, characterized by higher comorbidity rates, than those with PSO. Future research should explore PsA risk factors and how physicians can monitor and treat patients with PSO to reduce the risk of PsA and the associated clinical burden.

Psoriasis is a disease that causes scaly, red skin patches that are itchy or painful. About one-third of people who have psoriasis also develop joint pain. This combination of skin symptoms and joint disease is known as psoriatic arthritis. Having psoriatic arthritis can have a greater effect on people's quality of life than having psoriasis alone. People with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis often have other medical conditions that are not related to their skin or joints. We know that some conditions, such as obesity and high blood pressure, are more common in people with psoriatic arthritis than in those who only have psoriasis. However, more evidence is needed to understand if this pattern is also seen with other medical conditions. We used a large database of medical insurance claims and electronic health records to see what other medical conditions people with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis had. We found that people with psoriatic arthritis were more likely to have other medical conditions than those with only psoriasis, including high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and mental health conditions. These differences became larger over the years covered by this study (2007­2018). The results of this study show that people with psoriatic arthritis are more likely to have additional medical conditions than those who have psoriasis alone. Therefore, it is very important that doctors understand how to reduce the risk of joint disease in their patients with psoriasis.

Factors Associated with Adherence to and Treatment Duration of Erlotinib Among Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer, there is an increasing number of oral agents available for patients; however, little is known about the factors associated with adherence to and treatment duration on oral medications in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and demographic factors associated with adherence and treatment discontinuation, respectively, to oral oncolytics among patients with NSCLC. METHODS: A retrospective, claims-based analysis of the Humana Research Database supplemented with medical chart review was conducted among patients with NSCLC who started an oral oncolytic between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013. Patients were required to be enrolled at least 1 year before the start of oral oncolytics and have no evidence of any oral oncolytic use during this period. Logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors associated with medication adherence and treatment duration, respectively. RESULTS: Among all oral oncolytics, only the cohort starting on erlotinib had sufficient sample size (n = 1,452). A wide variety of factors were found to be associated with adherence. Low-income subsidy status, previous use of intravenous chemotherapy, and lower total baseline health care costs were significantly related to decreasing adherence (each P < 0.05). Additionally, increasing patient out-of-pocket cost was associated with decreasing adherence to erlotinib (P < 0.0001). Factors significantly related to longer treatment duration included low-income subsidy status (P < 0.001) and having Medicare insurance, (P = 0.0004), dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid, P = 0.007), and higher erlotinib out-of-pocket costs (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for mechanisms to be in place to identify and address barriers to care. Future research should focus on evaluating and reducing any potential risk to patient outcomes that may be associated with low adherence to or shorter treatment duration on oral chemotherapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly and Company to Comprehensive Health Insights, a Humana company, as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Hess, Winfree, Zhu, and Oton are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Louder and Nair are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, which received funding to complete this research. Study concept and design were contributed by Hess, Zhu, Winfree, and Oton. Nair and Louder collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Hess, along with Nair, and revised by Hess, Nair, Louder, and Winfree, with assistance from Zhu and Louder.

Molecular testing patterns in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of oncogene mutations and gene rearrangements in individuals with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can help identify candidates for targeted therapy. This study examined whether clinicians are ordering molecular testing for patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) prior to therapy initiation. STUDY DESIGN: Members from a national health plan with lung cancer and metastatic disease were followed retrospectively. METHODS: Members were identified in medical claims data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012, if they had 2 or more claims for lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 162.xx) and metastatic disease (≥ 1 claim with ICD-9-CM code 196.xx-198.xx) who were continuously enrolled in a fully insured plan 180 days prior to index date. Patients were excluded if they had a history of chemotherapy used primarily in small cell lung cancer, or a medical claim associated with an unrelated malignancy. The timing of molecular testing was compared with the start of chemotherapy and targeted therapy, if applicable. RESULTS: A total of 2623 patients presumed to have mNSCLC were included for analysis; of whom, 52.5% were male with a mean age of 72.5 years (SD = 8.2 years). A total of 1597 (60.9%) patients had a Current Procedural Terminology code associated with molecular testing at any time in their claims history. Of the 733 patients with molecular testing and chemotherapy or targeted therapy claims, testing occurred prior to systemic therapy initiation in 651 (88.8%; 95% CI, 86.1%-90.9%) patients. The median time between testing and therapy initiation was 38 days (interquartile range = 23-69 days). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of oncogene mutations and gene rearrangements in mNSCLC routinely occurs prior to treatment initiation as suggested by analyses of claims data from a large US health plan. Validation using patient medical records is needed.

Patient Preferences Regarding Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapies: A Conjoint Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), provides patients with an alternative to subcutaneously or intravenously administered biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Little is known about patient preference for novel RA treatments. OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient preferences for attributes associated with RA treatments. METHODS: A choice-based conjoint survey was mailed to 1400 randomly selected commercially insured patients (aged 21-80 years) diagnosed with RA, who were continuously enrolled from May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013, and had ≥2 medical claims for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code 714.0 and no previous biologic DMARD use. Treatment attributes included route of administration; monthly out-of-pocket cost; frequency of administration; ability to reduce daily joint pain and swelling; likelihood of serious adverse events; improvement in the ability to perform daily tasks; and medication burden. Mean attribute importance scores were calculated after adjusting for patient demographics (eg, age, sex, years since diagnosis) using a hierarchical Bayes model. Patient preferences for each treatment attribute were ranked by the importance score. Part-worth utilities (ie, preference scores) were used to perform a conjoint market simulation. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients (response rate, 27.1%) returned the survey. Their mean age (± standard deviation) was 54.9 (± 9.3) years. Nonrespondents were 2 years younger (mean, 52.9 years; P = .002) but did not differ significantly from respondents in known clinical characteristics. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, mean patients' ranking of treatment attribute importance, in decreasing order, was route of administration, 34.1 (± 15.5); frequency of administration, 16.4 (± 6.8); serious adverse events, 12.0 (± 9.3); cost, 10.1 (± 6.2); medication burden, 9.8 (± 8.2); joint pain reduction, 8.9 (± 3.8); and daily tasks improvement, 8.8 (± 4.7). For the route of administration attribute, the part-worth utility was highest for the oral route. Conjoint simulation results showed that 56.4% of respondents would prefer an oral route of administration. CONCLUSION: Based on this survey completed by 380 patients with RA, commercially insured patients with RA consider the route of administration to be the most important attribute of their RA treatment. In this study, the majority (56.4%) of patients preferred the oral route of administration over other routes. Understanding patient preferences may help to inform provider and payer decisions in treatment selection that may enhance patient adherence to therapy.

Predictors of Change in Adherence Status from 1 Year to the Next Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on Oral Antidiabetes Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and medical resource utilization in the United States and worldwide. Treatment is aimed at keeping blood glucose levels close to normal and preventing or delaying medical complications. It has been estimated that only 50% of patients with diabetes in the United States achieve glycosylated hemoglobin A1c level < 7%. Nonadherence to antidiabetic medications has been identified as a major factor related to poor glycemic control. OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) whose adherence status to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) changed from 1 year to the next and (b) identify predictors of change in adherence status. METHODS: This retrospective study of the Humana Medicare Advantage Database included patients with T2DM and continuous enrollment between 2010 and 2012. Proportion of days covered (PDC) by OADs was calculated for each of the 3 study years (2010, 2011, 2012). Patients were classified as adherent (PDC ≥ 80%) or nonadherent (PDC < 80%) during each year. Patient characteristics from the baseline period (2010) were used as covariates, and adherence status changes from baseline to follow-up year (2011) were used as response variables. Data from the subsequent study periods (2011 as baseline, 2012 as follow-up) were used to validate the model (final model). RESULTS: A total of 238,402 patients met inclusion criteria. Among them, 144,216 (60.5%) were adherent, and 94,186 (39.5%) were nonadherent during the baseline period. Change in adherence status from baseline to follow-up year was observed in 31,320 (21.7%) patients that were adherent and 39,284 (41.7%) patients that were nonadherent during the baseline year. The final model for baseline adherent patients had a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) index of 73% and a misclassification rate of 39%. The predictors of highest importance were identified as total number of prescriptions filled with 90-day supply, diabetes-related pill burden, longest gap in OADs, total number of antidiabetic classes filled, and copay for the last OAD filled. The final model had a sensitivity value of 76.4%. The final model for baseline nonadherent patients had a ROC index of 68%, a misclassification rate of 36.4%, and sensitivity value of 52.9%. The predictors of highest importance were diabetes-related pill burden, longest gap in OADs, month-wise patient oscillation from adherent to nonadherent during baseline year, total number of prescriptions filled with a 90-day supply, and total pill burden during the baseline year. CONCLUSIONS: One third of the T2DM patients changed adherence status from 1 year to the next, and factors associated with adherence status changes were identified. Predictive models such as those used in this study can serve as useful and cost-effective tools for payers, helping to identify members that should be targeted for adherence enhancement programs and, ultimately, to improve patients' long-term outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Eli Lilly and Company. Comprehensive Health Insights, owned by Humana, completed this study. Peng, Fu, Ascher-Svanum, Ali, and Rodriguez are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Saundankar and Louder are employed by Comprehensive Health Insights, and Slabaugh and Young are employed by Humana. Study concept and design were contributed by Peng, Ascher-Svanum, and Young. Saundankar and Louder took the lead in data collection, while Saundankar, Peng, Fu, and Louder interpreted the data. The manuscript was written by Saundankar, Peng, Fu, and Louder and revised by Saundankar, Rodriguez, Ali, and Louder.

Acute pancreatitis associated with different combination therapies in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients receiving various combinations of protease inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DATA SOURCE: Ohio Medicaid claims database, January 1997-December 2002. PATIENTS: Four thousand nine hundred seventy-two patients with HIV infection who had received at least one antiretroviral drug. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three combination regimens were evaluated: didanosine plus other antiretroviral agents, protease inhibitors plus NRTIs or NNRTIs, and NRTI combinations (no didanosine) or NRTIs plus NNRTIs. We used Cox proportional hazard regression and Kaplan-Meier plots to examine the risk for acute pancreatitis. We identified 159 (3.2%) cases of acute pancreatitis during the study period. For patients who were newly treated for HIV, the incidence of acute pancreatitis was 1.95/100 person-years. Half of these cases developed within 500 days of the start of drug therapy. Hazard ratios (HRs) for acute pancreatitis were 39-54% higher for nonwhite patients than Caucasians and 240-290% higher for symptomatic versus nonsymptomatic patients. Hazard ratios also were significantly associated with increased age, liver injuries (HR 2.94, 6.73), and cardiovascular diseases (HR 1.68, 2.36), respectively, for both newly treated and previously diagnosed patients with HIV. The risk for patients receiving either protease inhibitors plus an NRTI or an NNRTI, or NRTI plus NNRTI combinations was not significantly different from the risk associated with didanosine combination therapy (p>0.10). CONCLUSION: The risk of acute pancreatitis was significantly associated with age, race, symptomatic HIV infection, and liver and cardiovascular diseases. However, risk did not differ significantly among patients with different antiretroviral regimens. Our results can be used by the medical community to enhance patient safety and minimize costly adverse drug reactions among patients with HIV infection.

Healthcare Utilization and Costs of Knee or Hip Replacements versus Pain-Relief Injections.

BACKGROUND: Given the dramatic increase in total knee and hip replacement procedures among the US population aged 45 years and older, there is a need to compare the downstream healthcare utilization and costs between patients who undergo joint replacement and those who receive intraarticular injections as a low-cost alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in osteoarthritis (OA)-related healthcare utilization and costs for Medicare members with OA who underwent knee or hip replacement versus those receiving steroid or viscosupplementation injections. METHODS: Medicare members aged ≥45 years diagnosed with OA were identified for this retrospective longitudinal study. Data were compared for patients who underwent primary knee or hip replacement surgery between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2012, and those receiving injection of pain-relief medication during the same period. The date of joint replacement surgery was considered the index date. For the comparison cohort, the index date was 180 days postinjection of the first intraarticular injection. Medical and pharmacy claims were examined longitudinally in 90-day increments, from 180 days preindex until 360 days postindex. Difference-in-difference analyses were conducted to compare the change in OA-related healthcare costs, postindex versus preindex, between the study cohorts. Time-to-event analyses were used to measure rates of readmissions and venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESULTS: The mean age was 70.7 years for patients with knee replacement, 71.7 years for those with hip replacement, and 71.1 years for those receiving pain-relief injection (P <.0001). The RxRisk-V comorbidity index scores were 4.7, 4.4, and 4.8, respectively (P <.0001). Difference-in-difference analyses indicated that decreases in OA-related costs were greater for the joint replacement cohorts (coefficient for knee replacement*time: -0.603; hip replacement*time: -0.438; P <.001 for both) than for the comparison cohort. The VTE rates were 5.6% (knee) and 5.1% (hip) postsurgery versus 1.4% (knee) and 1.3% (hip) presurgery. CONCLUSION: The overall difference-in-difference results showed a greater decrease in healthcare utilization and costs for the members with joint replacement than for those receiving injection.

Cholesterol treatment patterns and cardiovascular clinical outcomes associated with colesevelam HCl and ezetimibe.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceuticals are commonly used to help at-risk patients reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in an effort to prevent atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Although both the cholesterol inhibitor ezetimibe and the newer generation bile acid sequestrant colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) effectively reduce LDL-C levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia, real-world evidence based on clinical outcomes is lacking. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of healthcare insurance claims data from a large national healthcare payer was conducted to evaluate outcomes within 12 months among 2,067 patients with hypercholesterolemia after the initiation of treatment with colesevelam HCl (679 patients) as compared with ezetimibe (1,388 patients). Outcomes evaluated were (1) composite cardiovascular event which included myocardial infarction, stroke, angina, or revascularization and (2) macrovascular complication event which was a wider-encompassing measure that included all composite cardiovascular outcomes along with atherosclerosis, aneurysm, embolism, and peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS: An adjusted logistic regression model found lower odds of a composite cardiovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.97) within 12 months for subjects initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl compared with subjects initiating treatment with ezetimibe. The unadjusted OR was slightly lower (OR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.30-0.90). The odds ratio for the wider-encompassing macrovascular complication event occurring within 12 months of initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl or ezetimibe was not statistically significant (OR 0.821, 95 % CI 0.49-1.35). DISCUSSION: The evidence of lower risk for composite cardiovascular event rates for subjects treated with colesevelam HCl compared with those treated with ezetimibe suggests the potential need to consider risk of clinical outcomes, in addition to LDL-C levels, in real-world practice when choosing a pharmaceutical treatment.

Retrospective database analysis of the impact of prior authorization for type 2 diabetes medications on health care costs in a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan population.

BACKGROUND: Health plans and pharmacy benefit managers have implemented utilization management strategies for newer type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications to control pharmacy expenditures. Little is known about the impact of utilization management strategies on overall health care costs and subsequent use of T2DM medications among members who request, but do not receive, a T2DM medication requiring prior authorization (PA).  OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the receipt of a T2DM medication requiring PA, health care costs, and subsequent treatment for T2DM.  METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using pharmacy, medical, and laboratory claims data was conducted among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan members with a denied claim for a T2DM medication requiring PA (sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor [DPP-4i], and exenatide, an incretin mimetic) between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Subjects were required to have 12 months of continuous enrollment both before and after the index date. The entire study period was 24 months in duration, including a 12-month pre-index and 12-month post-index period. Three cohorts were identified: 1 that received a medication requiring PA (denied claim, subsequent fill) and 2 nonfilling control groups. Both control groups requested a medication requiring PA, as evidenced by the denied claim, but neither received the medication, either because the medication was not authorized or the member chose not to fill. Claims-based estimates were used to infer whether the individual likely met the criteria for PA, with 1 control group designated as having met the claims-based criteria (qualifying nonfilling cohort) and the other not having done so (nonqualifying nonfilling cohort.) The primary endpoint evaluated was the relationship between PA medication fill status and plan-paid costs (medical [including laboratory] and pharmacy) over the 12-month post-denial period, with generalized linear models adjusting for key covariates including demographics, concomitant medications, pre-index costs, pre-index adherence, and comorbidities. The secondary endpoint of T2DM medication use (post-denial) among the 2 nonfilling control groups was also evaluated.  RESULTS: There were 1,728 members identified who received medication for T2DM requiring PA (the received authorization cohort) and 2,373 who did not (606 qualifying nonfilling cohort; 1,767 nonqualifying nonfilling cohort.) Cohorts were similar with regard to age and gender, but the nonfilling cohort had more comorbidities. Total unadjusted plan-paid 12-month costs were lowest among the received authorization cohort ($11,739), slightly higher ($11,980) for the qualifying nonfilling cohort, and notably higher for the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort ($12,962), although no differences were statistically significant. After adjusting for key covariates, the difference between the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort ($11,980) and the received authorization cohort ($11,729) was statistically significant (P = 0.034). Large differences in plan-paid medical costs ($10,127 for the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort vs. $8,192 for the received authorization cohort) appeared to drive the overall cost totals and were significant in both the unadjusted (P = 0.005) and adjusted models (P less than 0.001). Pharmacy costs were significantly lower for the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort in the adjusted model and for the qualifying nonfilling cohort in both models (all P less than 0.001), but the lower pharmacy costs were not offset by the higher medical costs. In examining the use of medication for treatment of T2DM following the denied claim, 10.6% of the qualifying nonfilling cohort and 13.4% of the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort added another oral therapy, 10.2% and 5.8% added insulin, and 11.9% and 7.1% had treatment intensification, respectively. More than half (56.1%) of the qualifying nonfilling cohort, but only 32.1% of the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort, maintained current therapy.   CONCLUSIONS: This study found higher plan-paid health care costs (overall and medical alone) among members who requested a type 2 diabetes medication requiring PA, but never received it, compared with those who qualified for and received the requested medication. A notable number of individuals who were assumed to have met the criteria based on a claims-based equivalent, but who never received the medication, made no change to their current therapy. Failure of a member to take medication deemed necessary by his or her physician could translate to inadequate control of the diabetic condition and result in an excess of resource utilization and costs for treating the disease and associated comorbidities. In light of the present findings, health plans should consider not only the impact of utilization management strategies on reducing pharmacy costs, but the broader implication for overall health care costs and subsequent treatment patterns among members. 

Out-of-pocket costs and prescription reversals with oral linezolid.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between benefit design, out-of-pocket costs, and prescription reversals, and the impact of reversals on rehospitalizations and total healthcare costs among Medicare members prescribed oral linezolid. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare members from a national health plan prescribed oral linezolid posthospitalization for skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or pneumonia were followed retrospectively. METHODS: Members were identified by an oral linezolid prescription between June 1, 2007, and April 30, 2011, where the index event was a prescription fill or reversal less than 2 days before or 10 days after discharge. Associations between out-of-pocket costs and reversal, and between reversal and rehospitalization 30 days postindex, were compared for prescription fills versus reversals. A generalized linear model calculated adjusted total healthcare costs per member controlling for age, sex, geographic region, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Reversal rates rose progressively from 2% for members with out-of-pocket costs of $0 to 27% for members with out-of-pocket costs higher than $100 (P < .0001). Infection-related rehospitalizations were 23% versus 9% for members with a prescription reversal versus a fill (P < .0001). While postdischarge prescription drug costs were $1228.78 lower (P <.0001), adjusted mean medical costs were $2061.69 higher (P = .0033) and total healthcare costs were $1280.93 higher (P = .0349) for reversal versus fill members. CONCLUSIONS: Higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher rates of reversal, and reversals were associated with higher rates of rehospitalization and adjusted total healthcare costs among Medicare members prescribed oral linezolid posthospitalization for SSTI or pneumonia.

Impact of a step-therapy protocol for pregabalin on healthcare utilization and expenditures in a commercial population.

OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs among members with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or fibromyalgia (FM) in a commercial health plan implementing pregabalin step-therapy with members in unrestricted plans. METHODS: Retrospective study of outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol using claims data from Humana ('restricted' cohort) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan ('unrestricted' cohort). Members aged 18-65 years receiving treatment for pDPN, PHN, or FM during 2008 or 2009 were identified; cohorts were matched on diagnosis and geographic region. Baseline to follow-up changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs were determined using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. Statistical models adjusting for covariates explored relationships between restricted access and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3876 restricted cohort members were identified and matched to 3876 unrestricted cohort members. FM was the predominant diagnosis (84.7%). The unrestricted cohort was older (mean = 49.0 (SD = 10.4) years vs 47.6 (SD = 10.5) years; p < 0.001), and had greater comorbidity (RxRisk-V score = 5.4 (SD = 3.2) vs 4.4 (SD = 2.9), p < 0.001) than the restricted cohort. Compared with the unrestricted cohort, the restricted cohort demonstrated a greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization (-2.6%, p = 0.008), and greater increases in physical therapy and disease-related outpatient utilization (3.7%, p = 0.010 and 3.6%, p = 0.022, respectively). There were no statistically significant net differences in all-cause or disease-related total healthcare, medical, or pharmacy costs between cohorts. After adjusting for baseline compositional differences between cohorts, restricted plan membership was associated with a net increase in all-cause medical ($1222; p = 0.016) and disease-related healthcare costs ($859; p = 0.002). Limitations include use of a combined analysis for pDPN, PHN, and FM, especially since the observed results were likely driven by FM; an inability to link the prescribing of a medication with the condition of interest, which is common to claims analyses; and lack of pain severity information. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol resulted in lower pregabalin utilization, but this restriction was not associated with reductions in total healthcare costs, medical costs, or pharmacy costs.

Impact of certified CME in atrial fibrillation on administrative claims.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in physician behavior associated with a continuing medical education (CME) activity on atrial fibrillation (AF) can be measured using an administrative claims database. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, analytical review of physician practice changes and AF patient- related healthcare utilization and costs derived from an administrative claims database was performed on a cohort of Humana health system physicians. METHODS: The Humana physicians participated in a specified CME activity on the management of patients with AF. Treatment patterns of these providers and clinical outcomes of a cohort of established AF patients were compared 6 months before and 6 months after physician participation in the AF CME activity. RESULTS: Analysis of administrative claims data from Humana providers who participated in an AF CME activity and their patients demonstrated a significant reduction in AF-related healthcare costs and utilization, including decreased length of stay. Humana providers, in addition to the other CME activity participants, demonstrated significant gains in knowledge of evidence-based care strategies when presented with real-world scenarios of patients with AF. CONCLUSIONS: The use of administrative claims data is an innovative way of measuring the effectiveness of CME. These observations support the need for further investigation into the drivers of change in patient outcomes that may be associated with CME activities, as well as the utility of healthcare claims data as a possible valid measure of the impact of CME on physician performance and patient outcomes.

Impact of Celecoxib restrictions in medicare beneficiaries with arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of serious gastrointestinal (GI) complications and associated medical costs in a population with either osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in Medicare plans with celecoxib formulary restrictions versus plans without such restrictions. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare members in plans with and without celecoxib restrictions. Members diagnosed with OA or RA were identified and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: The restricted group had higher levels of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (51% vs 40%, p <.001), and celecoxib use was double in the unrestricted group (16% vs 8%, p <.001). The incidence of a serious GI complication was slightly higher in the restricted group (5.4% vs 4.6%, P <.001). The adjusted mean serious GI complication-related cost for the restricted group was more than 15 times higher than that for the nonrestricted group ($1559 [95% confidence interval (CI) $1341-$1811] vs $101 [95% CI $87-$117]), adjusted mean arthritis-related medical costs were $5733 per year (95% CI $5097-$6448) for the restricted group and $3170 (95% CI $2816-$3569) for the unrestricted group. CONCLUSIONS: The restricted group had significantly less use of celecoxib, indicating that restriction was effective at reducing celecoxib utilization. Although limitations exist when comparing populations from different health plans, and the underlying causes of serious GI complications are multifactorial, the restricted group had a higher incidence of serious GI complications and higher costs related to serious GI complications and arthritis.