Real-World Safety of Niraparib for Maintenance Treatment of Ovarian Cancer in Canada.

Niraparib was recently funded in Canada for the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the drug's safety profile in the real world remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study to describe the patient population using niraparib and the proportion that experienced adverse events between June 2019 and December 2022 in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia [BC], and Quebec). We used administrative data and electronic medical records from Ontario Health, Alberta Health Services, and BC Cancer, and registry data from Exactis Innovation. We summarized baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics and reported safety outcomes using cumulative incidence. We identified 514 patients receiving niraparib. Mean age was 67 years and most were initiated on a daily dose of 100 or 200 mg/day. Grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11-16% of the cohort. In Ontario, the three-month cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.3-15.4%), neutropenia was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.6-10.4%), and anemia was 11.3% (95% CI, 8.0-15.2%). Cumulative incidences in the remaining provinces were similar. Initial daily dose and proportions of hematological adverse events were low in the real world and may be related to cautious prescribing and close monitoring by clinicians.

International time trends and differences in topical actinic keratosis therapy utilization.

Background: Actinic Keratoses (AK) are precancerous lesions that can lead to Squamous Cell Carcinoma. International differences in the utilization of topical medications to treat AK are not well described. Objectives: To describe international differences in topical AK medication utilization, including associations of countries' economic status with AK medication utilization. Methods: We used IQVIA MIDAS pharmaceutical sales data for 65 countries (42 high-income, 24 middle-income) from April 2011 to December 2021. We calculated each country's quarterly utilization of medications in grams per 1000 population. We used univariable linear regression to assess the association between country economic status and AK medication utilization. Results: High-income countries used 15.37 more grams per 1000 population of 5-fluorouracil (95% CI: 9.68, 21.05), 4.64 more grams per 1000 population of imiquimod (95% CI: 3.45, 5.83), and 0.32 more grams per 1000 population of ingenol mebutate (95% CI: 0.05, 0.60). Limitations: Missing medication utilization data for some countries. Conclusion: High-income countries use more topical AK therapies than middle-income countries.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2024.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2024 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2024 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2024 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2023, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 13.6% compared to 2022, for a total of $722.5 billion. Utilization (a 6.5% increase), new drugs (a 4.2% increase) and price (a 2.9% increase) drove this increase. Semaglutide was the top drug in 2023, followed by adalimumab and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.1 billion (a 1.1% decrease) and $135.7 billion (a 15.0% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, increased utilization drove growth, with a small impact from price and new products. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led the decrease in expenditures, with price and new drugs modestly contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2024. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2024, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 10.0% to 12.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate an 11.0% to 13.0% increase and a 0% to 2.0% increase, respectively, compared to 2023. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of the 2018 Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Recalls and Subsequent Drug Shortages in Patients With Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall. CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.

Association of Different Prescribing Patterns for Oral Corticosteroids With Fracture Preventive Care Among Older Adults in the UK and Ontario.

Importance: Identifying and mitigating modifiable gaps in fracture preventive care for people with relapsing-remitting conditions such as eczema, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are prescribed high cumulative oral corticosteroid doses may decrease fracture-associated morbidity and mortality. Objective: To estimate the association between different oral corticosteroid prescribing patterns and appropriate fracture preventive care, including treatment with fracture preventive care medications, among older adults with high cumulative oral corticosteroid exposure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 65 195 participants with UK electronic medical record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (January 2, 1998, to January 31, 2020) and 28 674 participants with Ontario, Canada, health administrative data from ICES (April 1, 2002, to September 30, 2020). Participants were adults 66 years or older with eczema, asthma, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving prescriptions for oral corticosteroids with cumulative prednisolone equivalent doses of 450 mg or higher within 6 months. Data were analyzed October 22, 2020, to September 6, 2022. Exposures: Participants with prescriptions crossing the 450-mg cumulative oral corticosteroid threshold in less than 90 days were classified as having high-intensity prescriptions, and participants crossing the threshold in 90 days or more as having low-intensity prescriptions. Multiple alternative exposure definitions were used in sensitivity analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prescribed fracture preventive care. A secondary outcome was major osteoporotic fracture. Individuals were followed up from the date they crossed the cumulative oral corticosteroid threshold until their outcome or the end of follow-up (up to 1 year after index date). Rates were calculated for fracture preventive care and fractures, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards regression models comparing high- vs low-intensity oral corticosteroid prescriptions. Results: In both the UK cohort of 65 195 participants (mean [IQR] age, 75 [71-81] years; 32 981 [50.6%] male) and the Ontario cohort of 28 674 participants (mean [IQR] age, 73 [69-79] years; 17 071 [59.5%] male), individuals with high-intensity oral corticosteroid prescriptions had substantially higher rates of fracture preventive care than individuals with low-intensity prescriptions (UK: 134 vs 57 per 1000 person-years; crude HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 2.19-2.51, and Ontario: 73 vs 48 per 1000 person-years; crude HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.72). People with high- and low-intensity oral corticosteroid prescriptions had similar rates of major osteoporotic fractures (UK: crude rates, 14 vs 13 per 1000 person-years; crude HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15 and Ontario: crude rates, 20 vs 23 per 1000 person-years; crude HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.96). Results from sensitivity analyses suggested that reaching a high cumulative oral corticosteroid dose within a shorter time, with fewer prescriptions, or with fewer or shorter gaps between prescriptions, increased fracture preventive care prescribing. Conclusions: The results of this cohort study suggest that older adults prescribed high cumulative oral corticosteroids across multiple prescriptions, or with many or long gaps between prescriptions, may be missing opportunities for fracture preventive care.

The impact of expanded access to direct acting antivirals for Hepatitis C virus on patient outcomes in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has high global prevalence and can lead to liver complications and death. Access to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Canada increased following several policy changes, however the real-world impact of expanded DAA access and increased use of these drugs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the early change in rates of HCV-related hospitalizations overall and HCV-related hospitalizations with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after expanded DAA access. METHODS: We conducted a population-based time series analysis using national administrative health databases in Canada. Rates of HCV-related hospitalizations and HCV-related hospitalizations with HCC were enumerated monthly between April 2006 and March 2020. We used Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models with ramp functions in October 2014 and January 2017 to evaluate the impact of policies to expand DAA access on hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Rates of HCV-related hospitalizations in Canada increased between 2006 and 2014, and gradually declined thereafter. The decrease after October 2014, or the first policy change, was significant (p = 0.0355), but no further change was found after the second policy change in 2017 (p = 0.2567). HCV-related hospitalizations with HCC increased until end of 2013, followed by a plateau, before declining in 2016. No significant shifts were found after the first policy change in 2014 (p = 0.1291) nor the second policy change in 2017 (p = 0.6324). Subgroup analyses revealed that those aged 50-64 and males had observable declines in rates of HCV-related hospitalizations in the year prior to the first policy change. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding DAA access was associated with a drop in HCV-related hospitalizations in the overall Canadian population coinciding with the 2014 policy change. In light of the time required for HCV-related complications to manifest, continued ongoing research examining the real-world effectiveness of DAAs is required.

Prevalence and predictors of primary nonadherence to medications prescribed in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Most research on medication adherence has focused on secondary nonadherence and persistence to therapy. Medication prescriptions that are never filled by patients (primary nonadherence) remain understudied in the general population. METHODS: We linked prescribing data from primary care electronic medical records to comprehensive pharmacy dispensing claims between January 2013 and April 2019 in British Columbia (BC) to estimate primary nonadherence, defined as failure to dispense a new medication or its equivalent within 6 months of the prescription date. We used hierarchical multivariable logistic regression to determine prescriber, patient and medication factors associated with primary nonadherence among community-dwelling patients in primary care. RESULTS: Among 150 565 new prescriptions to 34 243 patients, 17% of prescriptions were never filled. Primary nonadherence was highest for drugs prescribed mostly on an as-needed basis, including topical corticosteroids (35.1%) and antihistamines (23.4%). In multivariable analysis, primary nonadherence was lower for prescriptions issued by male prescribers (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.88). Primary nonadherence decreased with patient age (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92 for each additional 10 years) but increased with polypharmacy among patients aged 65 years or older. Patients filled more than 82% of their medication prescriptions within 2 weeks after their primary care provider visit. INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of primary nonadherence to new prescriptions was 17%. Interventions to address primary nonadherence could target older patients with multiple medication use and within the first 2 weeks of the prescription issue date.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Inhibitors in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, providing patients with ALK-positive (+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with multiple therapy options, multiple lines of treatments, and prolonged survival. However, these recent treatment advances have resulted in additional increases in treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK+ NSCLC. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic reviews of economic evaluation. The population included adult patients with locally advanced (stage IIIb/c) or metastatic (stage IV) NSCLC cancer with confirmed ALK fusions. The interventions included the ALK inhibitors alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, or lorlatinib. The comparators included the listed ALK inhibitors, chemotherapy, or best supportive care. The review considered cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) that reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in quality-adjusted life years and/or in life years gained. Published literature was searched in Medline (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in Embase (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, and in Cochrane library (via Wiley) by 11 January 2023. Preliminary screening of titles and abstracts was conducted against the inclusion criteria by two independent researchers followed by a full text of selected citations. Search results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Critical appraisal was conducted using the validated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS) tool as well as the Phillips et al. 2004 appraisal tool to assess the reporting and quality of the economic evaluations. Data were extracted from the final set of articles and presented in a table of characteristics of included studies, an overview of study methods of included studies, and a summarization of outcomes of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies met all inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were in the first-line treatment setting (n = 15). Included CEAs varied in the interventions and comparators being evaluated and were conducted from different country perspectives, limiting their comparability. Outcomes from the included CEAs showed that ALK inhibitors may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC in the first-line and subsequent lines of treatment setting. However, the probability of cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors ranged from 46 to 100% and were mostly achieved at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 USD or higher (> $30,000 or higher in China) in the first-line treatment setting and at thresholds of $50,000 USD or higher in subsequent lines of treatment setting. The number of published full-text CEAs is low and the studies represent a handful of country perspectives. The source of survival data was dependent on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Where RCT data were not available, indirect treatment comparisons or matched adjusted indirect comparisons were performed using efficacy data from different clinical studies. Real world evidence was rarely used for efficacy and costing data inputs. CONCLUSION: The findings summarized available evidence on cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC across lines of treatment settings and generated a valuable overview of analytical approaches utilized to support future economic analyses. To help further inform treatment and policy decisions, this review emphasizes the need for comparative cost effectiveness of multiple ALK inhibitors simultaneously using real-world data sources with broad representation of settings.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Up-to-date on cancer screening among Ontario patients seen by walk-in clinic physicians: A retrospective cohort study.

Walk-in clinics are typically viewed as high-volume locations for managing acute issues but also may serve as a location for primary care, including cancer screening, for patients without a family physician. In this population-based cohort study, we compared breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening up-to-date status for people living in the Canadian province of Ontario who were formally enrolled to a family physician versus those not enrolled but who had at least one encounter with a walk-in clinic physician in the previous year. Using provincial administrative databases, we created two mutually exclusive groups: i) those who were formally enrolled to a family physician, ii) those who were not enrolled but had at least one visit with a walk-in clinic physician from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared up to date status for three cancer screenings as of April 1, 2020 among screen-eligible people. We found that people who were not enrolled and had seen a walk-in clinic physician in the previous year consistently were less likely to be up to date on cancer screening than Ontarians who were formally enrolled with a family physician (46.1% vs. 67.4% for breast, 45.8% vs. 67.4% for cervical, 49.5% vs. 73.1% for colorectal). They were also more likely to be foreign-born and to live in structurally marginalized neighbourhoods. New methods are needed to enable screening for people who are reliant on walk-in clinics and to address the urgent need in Ontario for more primary care providers who deliver comprehensive, longitudinal care.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2023.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2023 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2023 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, diabetes medications, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2023 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2022, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 9.4% compared to 2021, for a total of $633.5 billion. Utilization (a 5.9% increase), price (a 1.7% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top-selling drug in 2022, followed by semaglutide and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.2 billion (a 5.9% decrease) and $116.9 billion (a 10.4% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with a small impact from price changes. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led to a decrease in expenditures, with price changes and new drugs contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending have been or are expected to be approved in 2023. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2023, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 6.0% to 8.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 8.0% to 10.0% and 1.0% to 3.0%, respectively, compared to 2022. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Use of Instrumental Variable Analyses for Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness in Empirical Applications of Oncology: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to characterize the use and trends of instrumental variables (IVs) in oncology research, assess the quality and completeness of IV reporting, and evaluate the agreement and interpretation of IV results in comparison with other techniques used for determining comparative effectiveness in observational research. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of observational empirical oncology papers evaluating the comparative effectiveness of cancer treatments using IV methods. EMBASE and MEDLINE (through June 2021) were used for a keyword search; Scopus and Web of Science were used for a citation search. Publication details and characteristics of IV analysis and reporting were extracted from each study to examine the uptake and quality of IV applications. RESULTS: Sixty-five empirical papers were identified from February 2001 through June 2021. Geographic variation (50.8%) was the most common type of IV used, and the majority of IV applications constructed binary instruments (53.8%). Concurrent analyses using another non-IV method to adjust for confounding were conducted in 56 (86.2%) studies, 17 (30.4%) of which produced results divergent from IV approaches. We observed a modest uptake of IV methods between 2011 and 2021 together with its dissemination, which remained fairly limited to the United States (76.9%). The quality and completeness of IV reporting varied greatly. The underlying assumptions required for a valid IV analysis were only accounted for in full by 20 (30.8%) studies. CONCLUSION: There are limited use and variable quality of IV analyses in oncology. Future research should look to establish standards to better facilitate the quality, transparency, and completeness of IV reporting in this setting.

Engaging Patients in the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Initiative: Processes and Lessons Learned.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration established the Engagement Working Group (WG) to ensure that all key stakeholders had an opportunity to provide input into the development and implementation of the CanREValue Real-World Evidence (RWE) Framework. Two consultations were held in 2021 to solicit patient perspectives on key policy and data access issues identified in the interim policy and data WG reports. Over 30 individuals, representing patients, caregivers, advocacy leaders, and individuals engaged in patient research were invited to participate. The consultations provided important feedback and valuable lessons in patient engagement. Patient leaders actively shaped the process and content of the consultation. Breakout groups facilitated by patient advocacy leaders gave the opportunity for open and thoughtful contributions from all participants. Important recommendations were made: the RWE framework should not impede access to new drugs; it should be used to support conditional approvals; patient relevant endpoints should be captured in provincial datasets; access to data to conduct RWE should be improved; and privacy issues must be considered. The manuscript documents the CanREValue experience of engaging patients in a consultative process and the useful contributions that can be achieved when the processes to engage are guided by patients themselves.

Correlates of Opioid Use Among Ontario Long-Term Care Residents and Variation by Pain Frequency and Intensity: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is common among older residents of long-term care (LTC) homes and often poorly recognized and treated. With heightened concerns regarding opioid prescribing in recent years, it is important to examine the current prevalence of opioid use and its association with resident characteristics to help identify those potentially at risk of medication harms as well as suboptimal pain management. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to estimate the prevalence and correlates of opioid use among non-palliative LTC residents and explore variation in opioid prevalence and correlates across strata defined by pain frequency and intensity. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of all older (aged > 65 years) LTC residents (excluding those with cancer or receiving palliative care) in Ontario, Canada during 2018-2019. Health administrative databases were linked with standardized clinical assessment data to ascertain residents' health and pain characteristics and their opioid and other medication use. Modified Poisson regression models estimated unadjusted and adjusted associations between residents' characteristics and opioid use, overall and across strata capturing pain frequency and intensity. RESULTS: Among 75,020 eligible residents (mean age 85.1 years; 70% female), the prevalence of opioid use was 18.5% and pain was 29.4%. Opioid use ranged from 12.2% for residents with no current pain to 55.7% for those with severe pain. In adjusted models, residents newly admitted to LTC (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.62) and with moderate to severe cognitive impairment (aRR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.66-0.72) or dementia (aRR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.74-0.79) were significantly less likely to receive an opioid, whereas residents with select conditions (e.g., arthritis, aRR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.32-1.41) and concurrently using gabapentinoids (aRR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.74-1.86), benzodiazepines (aRR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.28-1.38), or antidepressants (aRR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.27-1.35) were significantly more likely to receive an opioid. The associations observed for residents newly admitted, with dementia, and concurrently using gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants were largely consistent across all pain strata. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings describe resident sub-groups at potentially higher risk of adverse health outcomes in relation to both opioid use and non-use. LTC clinical and policy changes informed by research are required to ensure the appropriate recognition and management of non-cancer pain in this setting.

Prevalence of prescription and non-prescription polypharmacy by frailty and sex among middle-aged and older Canadians.

Background: Estimates of polypharmacy have primarily been derived from prescription claims, and less is known about the use of non-prescription medications (alone or in combination with prescription medications) across the frailty spectrum or by sex. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy (total, prescription, non-prescription, and concurrent prescription and non-prescription) overall, and by frailty, sex and broad age group. Data: Canadian Health Measures Survey, Cycle 5, 2016 to 2017. Methods: Among Canadians aged 40 to 79 years, all prescription and non-prescription medications used in the month prior to the survey were documented. Polypharmacy was defined as using five or more medications total (prescription and non-prescription), prescription only and non-prescription only. Concurrent prescription and non-prescription use was defined as two or more and three or more of each. Frailty was defined using a 31-item frailty index (FI) and categorized as non-frail (FI ≤ 0.1) and pre-frail or frail (FI > 0.1). Survey-weighted descriptive statistics were calculated overall and age standardized. Results: We analyzed 2,039 respondents, representing 16,638,026 Canadians (mean age of 56.9 years; 51% women). Overall, 52.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47.3 to 57.4) were defined as pre-frail or frail. Age-standardized estimates of total polypharmacy, prescription polypharmacy and concurrent prescription and non-prescription medication use were significantly higher among pre-frail or frail versus non-frail adults (e.g., total polypharmacy: 64.1% versus 31.8%, respectively). Polypharmacy with non-prescription medications was common overall (20.5% [95% CI = 16.1 to 25.8]) and greater among women, but did not differ significantly by frailty. Interpretation: Polypharmacy and concurrent prescription and non-prescription medication use were common among Canadian adults, especially those who were pre-frail or frail. Our findings highlight the importance of considering non-prescribed medications when measuring the exposure to medications and the potential risk for adverse outcomes.

Trends of Dispensed Opioids in Catalonia, Spain, 2007-19: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Over 5 Million Individuals.

Objective: To characterize the trend of opioid use (number of users, dispensations and oral morphine milligram equivalents) in Catalonia (Spain). Design, setting, and participants: This population-based cohort study included all individuals aged 18 years or older, registered in the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP), which covers >75% of the population in Catalonia, Spain, from 1 January 2007, to 31 December 2019. Main exposure and outcomes: The exposures were all commercialized opioids and their combinations (ATC-codes): codeine, tramadol, oxycodone, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, and other opioids (dihydrocodeine, hydromorphone, dextropropoxyphene, buprenorphine, pethidine, pentazocine). The main outcomes were the annual figures per 1,000 individuals of 1) opioid users, 2) dispensations, and 3) oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Results were stratified separately by opioid types, age (5-year age groups), sex (male or female), living area (rural or urban), and socioeconomic status (from least, U1, to most deprived, U5). The overall trends were quantified using the percentage change (PC) between 2007 and 2019. Results: Among 4,656,197 and 4,798,114 residents from 2007 to 2019, the number of opioid users, dispensations and morphine milligram equivalents per 1,000 individuals increased 12% (percentage change: 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.9-12.3%), 105% (95% confidence interval 83%-126%) and 339% (95% CI 289%-390%) respectively. Tramadol represented the majority of opioid use in 2019 (61, 59, and 54% of opioid users, dispensations, and total MME, respectively). Individuals aged 80 years or over reported the sharpest increase regarding opioid users (PC: 162%), dispensations (PC: 424%), and MME (PC: 830%). Strong opioids were increasingly prescribed for non-cancer pains over the years. Conclusion: Despite the modest increase of opioid users, opioid dispensations and MME increased substantially, particularly in the older population. In addition, strong opioids were incrementally indicated for non-cancer pains over the years. These findings suggest a transition of opioid prescriptions from intermittent to chronic and weak to strong and call for more rigorous opioid stewardship.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2022 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2022 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2022 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2021, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 7.7% compared to 2020, for a total of $576.9 billion. Utilization (a 4.8% increase), price (a 1.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.1% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top drug in terms of overall expenditures in 2021, followed by apixaban and dulaglutide. Drug expenditures were $39.6 billion (a 8.4% increase) and $105.0 billion (a 7.7% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and in clinics, respectively. In clinics and hospitals, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with decreasing prices for both sectors acting as an expense restraint. Several new drugs that are likely to influence spending are expected to be approved in 2022. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2022, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7.0% to 9.0% and 3.0% to 5.0%, respectively, compared to 2021. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence: Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's RWE Data Working Group.

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8-11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration's Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.