Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Pharmacotherapies Among Nonhospitalized US Veterans, January 2022 to January 2023.

Importance: Several pharmacotherapies have been authorized to treat nonhospitalized persons with symptomatic COVID-19. Longitudinal information on the use of these therapies is needed. Objective: To analyze trends and factors associated with prescription of outpatient COVID-19 pharmacotherapies within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from January 2022 through January 2023 using VHA and linked Community Care and Medicare databases. Exposures: Demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, COVID-19 vaccination, and regional and local systems of care, including Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs). Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly receipt of any COVID-19 pharmacotherapy (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab, or bebtelovimab) was described. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with receipt of any vs no COVID-19 pharmacotherapy. Results: Among 285 710 veterans (median [IQR] age, 63.1 [49.9-73.7] years; 247 358 males [86.6%]; 28 444 Hispanic [10.0%]; 61 269 Black [21.4%] and 198 863 White [69.6%]) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between January 2022 and January 2023, the proportion receiving any pharmacotherapy increased from 3285 of 102 343 veterans (3.2%) in January 2022 to 5180 of 21 688 veterans (23.9%) in August 2022. The proportion declined to 2194 of 10 551 veterans (20.8%) by January 2023. Across VISNs, the range in proportion of patients who tested positive who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir during January 2023 was 41 of 692 veterans (5.9%) to 106 of 494 veterans (21.4%) and 2.1% to 120 of 1074 veterans (11.1%), respectively. Veterans receiving any treatment were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for ages 65-74 vs 50-64 years, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.22; aOR for ages ≥75 vs 50-64 years, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.15-1.23) and have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (aOR for CCI ≥6 vs 0, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.44-1.59). Compared with White veterans, Black veterans (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09) were more likely to receive treatment, and compared with non-Hispanic veterans, Hispanic veterans (aOR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) were more likely to receive treatment. Conclusions And Relevance: This study found that prescription of outpatient COVID-19 pharmacotherapies in the VHA peaked in August 2022 and declined thereafter. There were large regional differences in patterns of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir use.

Comparison of hospitalization costs for the same adverse reaction associated with different medications.

PURPOSE: Costs of hospitalization due to severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were previously estimated within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), but additional analyses are needed to infer potential interventions to mitigate these negative outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare specific adverse reaction-related hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications. METHODS: Mean hospitalization costs associated with the same ADR symptom were compared for different drugs with similar indications using adjusted generalized linear models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons as well as a gamma distribution. RESULTS: Overall, hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications were not significantly different for specific adverse reactions. However, gastrointestinal hemorrhage-associated costs were higher for warfarin versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (model estimate of mean cost, $18,114 [range of lower and upper model estimates, $12,522-$26,202] vs $14,255 [estimate range, $9,710-$20,929]). Similarly, the estimated mean hospitalization cost associated with angioedema was higher for losartan versus lisinopril or lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide: $14,591 (range, $9467-$22,488) versus $8,935 (range, $6,301-$12,669) and $8,022 (range, $5,424-$11,865), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although we found few differences in the cost of hospitalization when comparing drugs with similar indications and the same adverse reaction, there were specific drug-ADR pairs that merit attention and consideration of interventions to improve safe and appropriate medication use. Evaluation of the effect of those interventions on the incidence of ADRs is an area for future study.

Assessment of Use and Safety of Edaravone for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Importance: Using real-world data, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiated a surveillance evaluation of edaravone after its approval for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2017. The use and safety of edaravone for patients with ALS in the VA health care system remain to be assessed. Objective: To describe a pharmacovigilance surveillance initiative with edaravone to monitor patient characteristics, utilization (edaravone cycles and riluzole use), and safety and to evaluate safety/effectiveness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This propensity score-matched cohort study used data on 369 patients with documented definite or probable ALS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with at least 1 prescription for edaravone between August 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. The analysis compared edaravone (alone or with riluzole) with riluzole only. For chronic users (≥6 months of drug), a time-to-event model evaluated ALS-related outcomes, with censoring at outcome, death, or end of evaluation. Patients with Parkinson disease, dementia, schizophrenia, or significant respiratory insufficiency per diagnosis codes within 2 years before prescription initiation were excluded. In overall matched cohorts, 223 patients treated with edaravone were 1:3 propensity score matched based on predefined confounders. For the chronic user subgroup analysis, 96 patients receiving edaravone and 424 patients receiving riluzole only were included. Exposures: Edaravone (alone or with riluzole) vs riluzole only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient characteristics, ALS drug use, and mortality. Acute outcomes (within 6 months of index) included proportion and mean time to event for death, discontinuation, or all-cause hospitalization, and outcomes for chronic users (receiving >6 months of treatment) included hazard ratios of outcomes related to disease-state progression. Results: Of 369 patients who received edaravone, most were older (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [11.3] years), male (346 [93.8%]), and White (261 [70.7%]). As of September 2019, 59.9% of edaravone patients had discontinued treatment; of those, 49.5% (108 of 218) received only 1 to 3 treatment cycles. Approximately 30% (110 patients) died. In a matched evaluation, significantly more acute all-cause hospitalization events occurred with edaravone (35.4% vs 22.0% for riluzole only); 72.6% of the edaravone cohort received edaravone with riluzole. Among chronic users, edaravone patients (70.8% edaravone with riluzole) had an increased hazard ratio of ALS-associated hospitalization (2.51; 95% CI, 1.18-8.16). The death rate was lower with edaravone but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: Early edaravone discontinuation was common in the VA. Although outcomes favored use of riluzole only in the matched analysis, results should be interpreted with caution, as unmeasured bias in observational data is likely.

Varenicline and Nicotine Replacement Use Associated With US Food and Drug Administration Drug Safety Communications.

Importance: Drug safety communications released by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are often based on limited evidence on safety signals after approval. Varenicline may serve as a relevant case study because it was the target of several FDA communications in 2008 and 2009; ultimately, the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) dismissed safety concerns on increased suicidal thoughts and aggressive and erratic behavior on December 16, 2016. Objective: To examine the association between FDA drug safety communications and the use of varenicline. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, longitudinal, cross-sectional study of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) outpatient data from October 1, 2001, through December 31, 2018, and Medicaid drug state use data from July 1, 2006, through September 30, 2018, on varenicline prescribing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescribing records for varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in the VHA were extracted, and the number of unique varenicline and NRT users in the VHA per quarter was measured. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to describe the association between FDA safety warnings and the use of varenicline and NRT. To test the generalizability of the findings, similar analyses were conducted using the number of prescriptions reimbursed for varenicline by Medicaid every quarter in 2006-2018. Results: After its addition to the VHA national drug formulary in January 2007, varenicline use presented a steady increase, reaching a peak of 32 581 quarterly unique users in the first quarter of 2008. Within 12 months of the February 1, 2008, public health advisory, quarterly varenicline use in VHA patients decreased by 68.7% (from 32 581 to 10 182 patients; P < .001 for slope change), and NRT use increased by 32.1% (from 55 728 to 73 629 patients; P < .001 for slope change). In Medicaid prescriptions, varenicline use decreased by 38.0% (from 109 308 to 67 761 prescriptions; P < .001 for slope change) within 12 months of the 2008 public health advisory. Twelve months after the publication of the EAGLES trial, which showed no significant increase in psychiatric/behavioral effects with varenicline relative to NRT, use of varenicline increased by 42.7% in VHA patients (from 9251 to 13 199 patients; P = .01 for slope change) and by 26.0% in Medicaid prescriptions (112 063 to 141 122; P = .26 for slope change ). Conclusions and Relevance: With use of varenicline as a case study, early communications from the FDA and VHA followed by a labeling change appeared to be associated with a considerable decrease in drug use, which may have been associated with negative public health consequences.

Comparison of clinical pharmacy specialists and usual care in outpatient management of hyperglycemia in Veterans Affairs medical centers.

PURPOSE: The results of a study to assess the effectiveness and safety of hyperglycemia management provided by clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) versus usual care in outpatients with diabetes from 53 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers are reported. METHODS: An historical cohort study of outpatients with baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values of >9% who were referred to a CPS for management of hyperglycemia and primary care patients who were not referred to a CPS was conducted. The primary outcomes were change in HbA1c over time and time to reach an HbA1c value of <8%. Secondary outcomes included the number of visits to achieve an HbA1c value of <8%, proportion of patients with an HbA1c value of <6% who were receiving secretagogues, and proportion of patients with serious hypoglycemia. RESULTS: After propensity score matching by baseline characteristics, there were 12,327 patients in each group. The mean ± S.D. number of visits to reach an HbA1c value of <8% was 2.46 ± 1.58 in the pharmacist-managed group and 1.82 ± 1.27 with usual care (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with an HbA1c value of <6% who were receiving secretagogues was 39.9% with pharmacist-managed care and 38.6% with usual care (p = 0.73). Serious hypoglycemia was noted in 4.3% of pharmacist-managed patients and 3.1% of usual care patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Data from 53 VA medical centers revealed that CPSs managed the care of ambulatory care patients with hyperglycemia as well as primary care providers.

Impact of Dual Use of Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D Drug Benefits on Potentially Unsafe Opioid Use.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and consequences of receiving prescription opioids from both the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D. METHODS: Among US veterans enrolled in both VA and Part D filling 1 or more opioid prescriptions in 2012 (n = 539 473), we calculated 3 opioid safety measures using morphine milligram equivalents (MME): (1) proportion receiving greater than 100 MME for 1 or more days, (2) mean days receiving greater than 100 MME, and (3) proportion receiving greater than 120 MME for 90 consecutive days. We compared these measures by opioid source. RESULTS: Overall, 135 643 (25.1%) veterans received opioids from VA only, 332 630 (61.7%) from Part D only, and 71 200 (13.2%) from both. The dual-use group was more likely than the VA-only group to receive greater than 100 MME for 1 or more days (34.3% vs 10.9%; adjusted risk ratio [ARR] = 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9, 3.1), have more days with greater than 100 MME (42.5 vs 16.9 days; adjusted difference = 16.4 days; 95% CI = 15.7, 17.2), and to receive greater than 120 MME for 90 consecutive days (7.8% vs 3.1%; ARR = 2.2; 95% CI = 2.1, 2.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare Part D, dual use of opioids was associated with more than 2 to 3 times the risk of high-dose opioid exposure.

Opioid dispensing and overlap in veterans with non-cancer pain eligible for Medicare Part D.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is the most prevalent problem among veterans, who receive pain diagnoses 5 times more frequently than the general population. Opioids are commonly prescribed for pain, but they have potential for misuse and serious adverse events. The study objective was to evaluate opioid dispensing patterns and predictors for overlap in veterans who are eligible for Medicare Part D benefits. METHODS: A sample of male and all female veterans aged 66 years and older without cancer in 2005-2009 was included. Overlapping days' supply of opioids were evaluated within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), within Part D, and in cross-system users of VA and Part D-reimbursed pharmacies during 2007-2009. Dispensing patterns were analyzed with t tests and chi-square tests. Predictors of overlap were identified with general estimating equations. RESULTS: At least 1 opioid was dispensed to 88.5% of the sample. In 2006 after Part D implementation, 55.2% of opioids were dispensed by VA, decreasing to 44.3% in 2009 (P <0.0001). Opioids dispensed from Part D-reimbursed pharmacies had a higher frequency of overlap compared to those filled at a VA facility (P <0.0001). While overlapping days' supply for opioids filled at VA decreased, overlap increased for prescriptions filled at Part D-reimbursed pharmacies (P <0.0001). There was minimal overlap in opioids between systems, but cross-system use increased over the study period. Predictors for overlap include females, Part D enrollment, no VA medication copay, sleep disorders, psychiatric diagnoses, and substance or alcohol abuse (all P <0.01). Veterans who were Hispanic, older, and had higher incomes had lower overlap odds (all P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Opioids dispensed from Part D-reimbursed pharmacies had a higher frequency of overlapping days' supply as compared to those filled by the VA, but there was minimal overlap between systems. While overlapping opioid prescriptions filled by the VA decreased from 2007 to 2009, overlap increased for prescriptions filled at Part D-reimbursed pharmacies. Tools, such as drug monitoring programs, should be used by VA and non-VA providers to decrease opioid-related harms and misuse.

Medication acquisition by veterans dually eligible for Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D pharmacy benefits.

PURPOSE: The patterns of medication acquisition for veterans dually eligible for pharmacy benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D-reimbursed pharmacies were examined. METHODS: The characteristics of veterans who used pharmacies reimbursed by (1) VA only, (2) both VA and Part D-reimbursed, and (3) Part D-reimbursed only pharmacies in 2009 were compared and their medication types and sources examined. Pharmacy usage was measured as the number of 30-day medication supplies and the number of different drug classes that veterans received from VA and Part D-reimbursed pharmacies. Chi-square testing and analysis of variance were used to compare unadjusted patient characteristics and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: A total of 145,899 veterans with any VA or Part D-reimbursed pharmacy use were included in the study: 69.6% used VA pharmacies only, 9.9% used VA and Part D-reimbursed pharmacies, and 20.5% used Part D-reimbursed pharmacies only. Veterans who lived in rural areas, were non-Black, had VA medication copayments, or were dual or Medicare-only outpatient users were more likely to be dual or Part D-reimbursed only pharmacy users (p < 0.001). Dual pharmacy users received more 30-day supplies than did the other two pharmacy-use groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Nearly one third of VA users received medications from Part D-reimbursed pharmacies, either alone or together with VA pharmacies. Among dual pharmacy users, over half received medications from the same drug class from both VA and Part D-reimbursed pharmacies for which the days' supplies overlapped by more than seven days.

Veterans' Pharmacy and Health Care Utilization Following Implementation of the Medicare Part D Pharmacy Benefit.

We examined associations between enrollment in Medicare Part D pharmacy benefits and changes in medication acquisition from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacies. We included all women and a random 10% sample of men who were VA enrollees, ≥65 years old as of January 1, 2004, and alive through December 2007. We used difference-in-differences models with propensity score weighting to examine changes in medication acquisition between 2005 (before Part D was implemented) and 2007 (after Part D implementation) for veterans who were or were not Part D enrolled. Of 231,716 veterans meeting inclusion criteria, 49,881 (21.5%) were enrolled. While 30-day medication supplies decreased from 26.2 to 23.4 for enrolled veterans, they increased from 36.6 to 37.4 for nonenrolled veterans (difference-in-differences: -4.0, p < .001). Reductions in 30-day supplies were greater among veterans who were required to pay VA copayments for some or all medications and who used VA and Medicare outpatient services.

Pharmacy Benefits Management in the Veterans Health Administration Revisited: A Decade of Advancements, 2004-2014.

Over the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (PBM) has enhanced its formulary management activities and added programs to ensure that the national drug plan continues to meet the pharmacy needs of veterans and to promote safe and appropriate drug therapy in the face of rising medication expenditures. This article describes the broad range of services provided by the VA PBM that work in partnership to deliver a high-quality and sustainable pharmacy benefit for veterans. In support of formulary management, VA PBM pharmacists prepare extensive clinical guidance documents (e.g., drug monographs and criteria for use) that are used by physicians and pharmacists with operational and clinical oversight of the VA national formulary. The VA PBM has utilized various contracting techniques and continually evaluates drug utilization data to identify opportunities for potential savings. Remarkably, since before 2004, the average acquisition cost for a 1-month supply of medication has remained fairly stable at approximately $13-$15. Two new VA PBM programs are the VA Center for Medication Safety (VA MedSAFE) and the Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office (CPPO). VA MedSAFE is a comprehensive pharmacovigilance program focused on the detection, assessment, and prevention of adverse drug events, and CPPO is dedicated to improving safe and appropriate medication use by supporting and expanding clinical pharmacy practice. Moving forward, the VA PBM will consider new initiatives to stay at the forefront of providing quality care while maintaining economic viability. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this research. This work was supported by VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (VA PBM), Hines, Illinois, and VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Glassman is co-director of the VA Center for Medication Safety, which is part of the VA PBM. He is also part of the Medical Advisory Panel for the VA PMB. All other authors are employed by the VA PBM. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs or the U.S. government is intended or should be inferred. Study concept and design were contributed by Valentino, Cunningham, Good, Aspinall, and Sales. Calabrese and Ourth took the lead in data collection, along with Good, Cunningham, Aspinall, Sales, Burk, Moore, Neuhauser, and Golterman. Data interpretation was performed by Burk, Newhauser, and Golterman, along with Glassman, Calabrese, Moore, and Ourth. The manuscript was written by Aspinall and Sales, along with Burk, Newhauser, Golterman, Ourth, and Cunningham. Good, Glassman, and Moore revised the manuscript, along with Calabrese, Valentino, and Aspinall.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Stage III Colon Cancer Treatment at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost effectiveness of adjuvant stage III colon cancer chemotherapy regimens, given that previous analyses have been based on data from clinical trials. The study was designed using integrated decision tree and Markov model, which was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), capecitabine, and the combination of each with oxaliplatin. The analysis was performed from a US Veterans Affairs perspective via retrospectively collected data, over a 5-year model time horizon. Outcome and cost data were used to calculate cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY), and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case analysis, capecitabine and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin both cost more and were less effective than other regimens, and 5-FU/LV plus oxaliplatin, compared to 5-FU/LV alone, resulted in a cost of $25,997 per QALY gained. Model results were generally robust to parameter variation. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin could be economically reasonable if full dosing occurred ≥76% of the time (base case 42%). In a real-world setting, the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV is more effective but also more costly than 5-FU/LV alone. If full dosing of capecitabine-containing regimens can be assured, they may also be cost-effective strategies.

Incremental cost effectiveness of pharmacist-managed erythropoiesis-stimulating agent clinics for non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists successfully manage patients with anemia and chronic kidney disease (CKD), but the cost effectiveness of these programs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of pharmacist-managed erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) clinics with that of usual care in patients with non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of pharmacist-managed ESA clinics compared with usual care in outpatient veterans receiving ESAs for NDD-CKD in 2009. The analysis was conducted from a US Veterans Health Administration perspective with a 5-year time horizon, and the year of valuation for cost results was 2012. The effect of parameter uncertainty was explored in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the deterministic base case analysis, costs and effectiveness per patient over 5 years were US$13,412 and 2.096 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the pharmacist-managed ESA clinics and US$16,173 and 2.093 QALYs in usual care; ESA clinics dominated usual care. In one-way sensitivity analyses, ESA clinics no longer dominated if their patients' probability of being in the target hemoglobin range fell to 52 % (base case 71 %) or if the mean cost/patient/month of epoetin or darbepoetin in ESA clinics increased to approximately US$382 (base case US$226) or US$477 (base case US$268), respectively. When all parameters were varied simultaneously in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ESA clinics were favored ≥80 % of the time at willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$0-$100,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-managed ESA clinics were less costly and more effective than usual care in patients receiving ESAs for anemia and NDD-CKD. Results were robust to variation and support the use of pharmacist-managed ESA clinics.

Medication acquisition across systems of care and patient-provider communication among older veterans.

PURPOSE: The results of a survey assessing Medicare Part D enrollment, the use of pharmacotherapies for chronic diseases, and other medication-use issues in a population of elderly military veterans are presented. METHODS: Medicare-eligible (i.e., ≥65 years of age) patients with documented recent service use at a single Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center were targeted for a mail survey. Women were oversampled (20%) to ensure an adequate sample size; the sample was weighted to adjust for this oversampling. Usable survey data were received from 458 survey respondents. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (93.2%) reported having one or more chronic conditions; of those, 93.3% reported regular use of multiple drug therapies, and 30.1% reported using medications prescribed by both VA and non-VA providers for the same chronic condition. About half of the survey respondents reported at least one office visit with a non-VA physician during the previous year, and 55.8% reported obtaining medications from non-VA pharmacies. More than half (54.1%) of the respondents reported non-VA medication coverage, with 21.2% indicating they were enrolled in Medicare Part D. Among the respondents who reported obtaining medications from non-VA pharmacies, substantial proportions reported discussing those medications with VA physicians never (38.4%) or infrequently (15.7%). CONCLUSION: Although large proportions of Medicare-eligible veterans take multiple medications and use non-VA health care services and pharmacies, many do not discuss medications obtained outside the VA system with VA physicians, suggesting that increased efforts to enhance provider-patient communication and medication reconciliation across VA and non-VA systems of care may be warranted.

Active surveillance of postmarket medical product safety in the Federal Partners' Collaboration.

After half a century of monitoring voluntary reports of medical product adverse events, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched a long-term project to build an adverse events monitoring system, the Sentinel System, which can access and evaluate electronic health care data to help monitor the safety of regulated medical products once they are marketed. On the basis of experience gathered through a number of collaborative efforts, the Federal Partners' Collaboration pilot project, involving FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Veteran Affairs, and the Department of Defense, is already enabling FDA to leverage the power of large public health care databases to assess, in near real time, the utility of analytical tools and methodologies that are being developed for use in the Sentinel System. Active medical product safety surveillance is enhanced by use of these large public health databases because specific populations of exposed patients can be identified and analyzed, and can be further stratified by key variables such as age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, and basis for eligibility to examine important subgroups.

Monitoring adverse drug reactions across a nationwide health care system using information technology.

PURPOSE: The improvement and linkage of two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) databases for monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are described, with a discussion of the potential implications for improved medication safety within the VA health care system. SUMMARY: Before 2007, VA had limited capability to track and evaluate ADRs across its nationwide network of health care facilities. Since then, VA has established a standardized monitoring system that has improved the reporting, analysis, and trending of ADRs reported by providers and pharmacists at individual VA facilities. The enhanced system has two components with distinct but complementary functions: the Adverse Reaction Tracking database, which is derived by extracting text-based, patient-specific information entered into the VA electronic medical record system by clinicians at the point of care; and the VA Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (VA ADERS), an external web-based portal that contains aggregated data from 146 VA facilities, with standardized coding of reported events. Both databases allow for ADR reporting at the local, regional, and national levels. The VA ADERS database permits rapid electronic reporting of certain ADRs to the federal MedWatch program. The two databases can be used in tandem for more comprehensive assessments of ADR patterns and reporting rates and to generate a wide range of benchmarking data. CONCLUSION: In recent years, the refinement of two databases for ADR reporting has increased VA's capability to systematically monitor, track, and report ADRs across its national network of health care facilities. Linking the two databases has further strengthened those capabilities, enhancing medication safety practices and aiding in pharmacovigilance.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of various monthly doses of vardenafil.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of four, six, and eight doses per month of vardenafil in the context of pharmacy benefit decision making. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of zero, four, six, or eight doses of vardenafil per month in hypothetical cohorts of 60-year-old male veterans with erectile dysfunction. Efficacy values for vardenafil were obtained from the literature, and vardenafil costs were obtained from Veterans Affairs pharmacy data. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, and the effect of parameter uncertainty was explored in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained for four doses of vardenafil per month compared with no therapy was $576. Six doses per month compared with four cost $2585/quality-adjusted life-year gained, and eight doses per month compared with six cost $5169/quality-adjusted life-year gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses of six doses per month compared with four, variation of two parameters caused the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to cross a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000: when the increased utility associated with giving two additional doses/month was less than 0.001 (baseline 0.01) and when the cost per dose increased to $15.00 (baseline $1.69). CONCLUSION: Although four doses per month of vardenafil was the most cost-effective strategy, the use of six or eight doses per month also compares favorably with other accepted medical treatments. The results were stable across a range of inputs and help to support the current Veterans Affairs policy on the number of vardenafil doses provided per month for erectile dysfunction.

Increasing copayments and adherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemic medications.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a medication copayment increase on adherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemic medications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective pre-post observational study. METHODS: This study compared medication adherence at 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers between veterans who were exempt from copayments and propensity-matched veterans who were not exempt. The diabetes sample included 1069 exempt veterans and 1069 nonexempt veterans, the hypertension sample included 3545 exempt veterans and 3545 nonexempt veterans, and the sample of veterans taking statins included 2029 exempt veterans and 2029 nonexempt veterans. The main outcome measure was medication adherence 12 months before and 23 months after the copayment increase. Adherence differences were assessed in a difference-in-difference approach by using generalized estimating equations that controlled for time, copayment exemption, an interaction between time and copayment exemption, and patient demographics, site, and other factors. RESULTS: Adherence to all medications increased in the short term for all veterans, but then declined in the longer term (February-December 2003). The change in adherence between the preperiod and the postperiod was significantly different for exempt and nonexempt veterans in all 3 cohorts, and nonadherence increased over time for veterans required to pay copayments. The impact of the copayment increase was particularly adverse for veterans with diabetes who were required to pay copayments. CONCLUSION: A $5 copayment increase (from $2 to $7) adversely impacted medication adherence for veterans subject to copayments taking oral hypoglycemic agents, antihypertensive medications, or statins.

Effect of increased copayments on pharmacy use in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

OBJECTIVES: In February 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) raised medication copayments from $2 to $7 per 30-day supply of medication for certain veteran groups. We examined the impact of the copayment increase on medication acquisition from VA. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from national VA databases from February 2001 through February 2003. We took a random sample of over 5% of male VA users in 2001. Of 149,107 veterans sampled, 19,504 (13%) had copayments for no drugs, 101,410 (68%) had copayments for some drugs, and 28,193 (19%) had copayments for all drugs. We used multivariable count models to examine changes in the number of 30-day medication supplies after the increase. RESULTS: After the copayment increase, veterans subject to copayments for all drugs received 8% fewer 30-day supplies of medication annually relative to veterans with no copayments (P < 0.001). The effect of the copayment increased as the number of different medications veterans received increased. Among veterans subject to copayments for all drugs, acquisition of lower-cost drugs fell by 36%, higher-cost medications fell by 6%, over-the-counter medications fell by 40%, and prescription-only medications fell by 4% relative to veterans with no drug copayments. CONCLUSIONS: The number of medications veterans obtained from VA decreased after the copayment increase. There were relatively larger impacts on veterans with higher medication use and on lower-cost and over-the-counter medications.

Drug costs and use in VHA nursing homes: a national overview of long-stay residents.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide national annualized estimates of drug costs and use by drug classes for long-stay nursing home (NH) residents. DESIGN: National, descriptive, secondary data analysis. SETTING: National, Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 136 NHs. PARTICIPANTS: Our study population consisted of 6554 VHA long-stay NH residents, identified from the Minimum Data Set (MDS), who had an annual assessment during FY 2005 linked with 8,847,561 inpatient pharmacy claims. MEASUREMENT: Descriptive statistics of the annual drug costs and use by VHA therapeutic drug classes obtained from FY 2005 national pharmacy claims linked at the individual resident level. RESULTS: The total cost of the drugs was $23,782,717 in 326 drug classes for 6554 VHA NH residents. Average annual drug cost was $3629 per resident (99% Confidence Interval [CI], $3343-$3915). The top 20 drug classes accounted for nearly 70% of total drug costs for long-stay NH residents. Approximately three quarters (73.3%) of these residents received a non-opioid analgesic (eg, acetaminophen, aspirin). Over half of these residents received antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs]) (54.3%), or other anti-infective drugs (eg, bacitracin, ciprofloxacin) (53.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first national study of drug costs and use for long-stay veterans in VHA NHs. It is essential in any study analyzing drug costs and use in NH patients to differentiate long-stay residents from short-stay patients. This kind of detailed cost and use analysis has implications for projecting future costs associated with the Medicare Part D prescription benefit for dually eligible NH residents.