US Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Insurance Claims-Based Report.

Background Current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. We assessed the concordance between healthcare provider real-world practice and current guidelines with respect to first-line AAD rhythm management. Methods and Results Administrative claims data from the deidentified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database were used. Patients were included if they were initiated on an AAD in 2015 to 2016, had 1 year of continuous data availability before their first AAD pharmacy claim, and had a diagnosis for atrial fibrillation within that period. Concordance was assessed by comparing the AAD initiated by the healthcare provider against guideline recommendations for first-line treatment, given the presence of heart failure, coronary artery disease, both, or neither (as determined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision [ICD-9 and ICD-10] codes). Concordance was also assessed by provider type using Medicare taxonomy codes. For the 15 445 patients included, 51% of healthcare providers initiated AAD treatments with amiodarone, 18% flecainide, 15% sotalol, 8% dronedarone, 5% propafenone, and 2% dofetilide. The overall rate of guideline concordance was 61%, with differences by provider type: 67% for electrophysiologists, 61% for cardiologists, and 60% for others (internal medicine, etc). Conclusions There continues to be a sizable gap in concordance between practice and guidelines in first-line rhythm management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Further research is needed to identify possible explanations for non-guideline-recommended use of AADs, in addition to enhanced AAD educational strategies for practitioners.

Practice-level variation in statin use and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control in the United States: Results from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to guideline-recommended statin recommendations in the United States is suboptimal. Patients' likelihood to be treated according to guidelines may vary by the practice in which they are treated. METHODS: Variation in the use of statin therapy in 5445 patients, with known or at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and meeting a statin treatment indication, was examined across 74 US Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry clinics. Multivariable generalized linear mixed modeling was used to determine the median odds ratio (MOR) for statin use and 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline-recommended statin intensity by practice. MOR quantifies between-practice variation by comparing the odds of receiving guideline-recommended statin treatment in a patient from a randomly selected practice with a similar patient from another random practice. Risk-adjusted low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control (<100 and <70 mg/dL) was compared among practice tertiles based on percentage of eligible patients receiving recommended statin intensity. RESULTS: Among 74 practices (43.2% cardiology) comprised of 300 healthcare providers enrolling 5445 patients (56.2% with ASCVD), statin use at the guideline-recommended intensity at practices varied widely (12.7-71.4%; adjusted MOR 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.64). Results were consistent when evaluated for any statin use overall (adjusted MOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.48-1.99) and when stratified by primary versus secondary prevention patients. Relative to practices with lowest or mid-tertile statin use of statins, highest tertile clinics were more frequently cardiology practices (68.0% vs 48.0% vs 12.5%, P < .001). Compared with lowest tertile clinics, patients at highest tertile clinics were more likely to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.04) and <100 mg/dL (adjusted OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41-2.25). CONCLUSIONS: US clinics varied widely in their adherence to guideline recommendations for statin therapy, which contributed to significant differences in LDL-C levels.

Budget Impact Analysis of PCSK9 Inhibitors for the Management of Adult Patients with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia or Clinical Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the budget impact of introducing the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) alirocumab and evolocumab to market for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease requiring additional lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). METHODS: A 3-year model estimated the costs of lipid-modifying therapy (LMT) and CV events to a hypothetical US health plan of 1 million members, comparing two scenarios-with and without the availability of PCSK9i as add-on therapy to statins. Proportions of patients with uncontrolled LDL-C despite receiving statins, and at risk of CV events, were estimated from real-world data. Total undiscounted annual LMT costs (2017 prices, including PCSK9i costs of $14,563.50), dispensing and healthcare costs, including the costs of CV events, were estimated for all prevalent patients in the target population, based on baseline risk factors. Maximum PCSK9i utilization of 1-5% over 3 years according to risk group (following the same pattern as current ezetimibe use), and 5-10% as a secondary scenario, were assumed. RESULTS: Total healthcare budget impacts per target patient (and per member) per month for years 1, 2 and 3 were $3.62($0.10), $7.22($0.20) and $10.79($0.30), respectively, assuming 1-5% maximum PCSK9i utilization, and $15.81($0.44), $31.52($0.88) and $47.12($1.31), respectively, assuming 5-10% utilization. Results were sensitive to changes in model timeframe, years to maximum PCSK9i utilization and PCSK9i costs. CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact of PCSK9i as add-on therapy to statins for patients with hypercholesterolemia is relatively low compared with published estimates for other specialty biologics. Drug cost rebates and discounts are likely to further reduce budget impact.

Development and Content Validity of the Statin Experience Assessment Questionnaire (SEAQ)©.

INTRODUCTION: The National Lipid Association Statin Intolerance (SI) Panel recognized the need for better understanding of the patient SI experience. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire to assess a patient's experience with SI. METHODS: Questionnaire development was informed via a series of research activities: literature review, concept elicitation, item generation, and content evaluation. Following the literature review and concept elicitation, a draft questionnaire was constructed and subsequently modified based on feedback from therapeutic area experts and patients via cognitive debriefing interviews. RESULTS: Muscle-related symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms associated with SI in the literature review (35 of 41 articles reviewed [85%]) and in semi-structured interviews with experts (n = 5 [100%]) and patients (n = 17 of 20 [85.0%]). Physical and other impacts of SI symptoms on daily activities were also frequently reported. A 17-item draft questionnaire was created, and cognitive debriefing with experts (n = 5) and patients (n = 15) was conducted. Overall, the items, response options, and instructions were comprehensible and positively reviewed; minor changes resulted in the 15-item Statin Experience Assessment Questionnaire (SEAQ)©. Using a 30-day recall period, the SEAQ© assesses the severity and impact of six SI symptoms (muscle ache, muscle pain, muscle cramps, muscle weakness, tiredness, and joint pain) on an 11-point numeric scale. Statin discontinuation and likelihood of discontinuation due to symptoms are assessed and scored on a yes/no and five-point verbal response scale, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SEAQ

Patterns of Statin Use in a Real-World Population of Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND: Widespread use of statins has improved hypercholesterolemia management, yet a significant proportion of patients remain at risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. Analyses of treatment patterns reveal inadequate intensity and duration of statin therapy among patients with hypercholesterolemia, and little is known about real-world statin use, specifically in subgroups of patients at high risk for CV events. OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of statin use and outcomes among patients with high-risk features who newly initiated statin monotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients (aged > 18 years) at high CV risk who received > 1 prescription for statin monotherapy and who had not received lipid-modifying therapy during the previous 12 months were identified from the Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (from January 2007 to June 2013). Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or diabetes were hierarchically classified into 5 mutually exclusive CV risk categories (listed here in order from highest to lowest risk): (1) recent CV event (subcategorized by hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome [ACS] or other non-ACS CV event within 90 days of index); (2) coronary heart disease (CHD); (3) history of ischemic stroke; (4) peripheral artery disease (PAD); and (5) diabetes. Outcomes of interest included changes in therapy, proportion of days covered (PDC), time to discontinuation, and proportion of patients with ASCVD-related inpatient visit during the follow-up period. Statin therapy was subdivided into high-intensity treatment (atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, or simvastatin 80 mg) or moderate- to low-intensity treatment (all other statins and statin dosing regimens). Follow-up data were obtained from the index date (statin initiation) until the end of continuous enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 541,221 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients were stratified in the diabetes cohort (61.1%), followed in frequency by recent ACS event (15.8%), recent non-ACS CV event (9.9%), PAD (4.7%), CHD (4.4%), and history of ischemic stroke (4.1%). Only 15.0% of the population initiated therapy with a high-intensity statin, and 22.5% of these high-intensity statin initiators switched to a moderate- to low-intensity regimen during the follow-up period. Median time to statin discontinuation was approximately 15 months. Duration of treatment was longer among those who were treated with a high-intensity versus a moderate- to low-intensity statin regimen (21 and 15 months, respectively). The PDC was highest in the recent ACS hospitalization cohort (66.4%) and lowest in the diabetes cohort (55.5%). The PDC was significantly greater among patients who initiated treatment with a high-intensity statin regimen than with a moderate- to low-intensity statin regimen (62.1% vs. 57.5%, respectively; P< 0.001). At 1 year, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative rates for ASCVD-related hospitalizations ranged from 3.5% (diabetes) to 21.8% (recent ACS hospitalization). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk for CV events are suboptimally dosed with statins, have high rates of discontinuation, and have low rates of adherence. Despite the use of statin therapy, ASCVD-related inpatient visit rates were high, particularly among those patients at highest risk because of a recent ACS hospitalization. Future interventions are required to ensure that high-risk patients are effectively managed to reduce subsequent morbidity and mortality. DISCLOSURES: Support for this research was provided by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York, and Sanofi US, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Menzin and Lin are employees of Boston Health Economics, which received consulting fees from Sanofi. Friedman is a consultant to Boston Health Economics. Lin, Friedman, and Menzin have received research support from Sanofi US. Sung, Mallya, Panaccio, and Koren are employees of Sanofi US and also have ownership interest in Sanofi US. Sanchez is an employee of and has ownership interest in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Neumann has served on advisory boards for Merck & Co, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Genentech, Novartis, Bayer AG, UCB, Sanofi US, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Cubist and serves as consultant for Boston Health Economics, Forrest, P urdue, and Smith and Nephew. This research has been presented in part at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20th Annual International Meeting, May 16-20, 2015, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. All authors contributed to the study design, protocol development, and results interpretation. Lin and Menzin were responsible for conducting the study analyses. All authors were involved in manuscript development and approved the submitted version.

Assessment of dronedarone utilization using US claims databases.

BACKGROUND: A dronedarone utilization study using US MarketScan and InVision Data Mart databases was conducted to estimate the prevalence of the following: (1) dronedarone use in contraindicated patients with worsening heart failure (HF) or hospitalization for HF within 1 month before dronedarone prescription; (2) concomitant prescribing of contraindicated drugs; and (3) recommended creatinine testing after dronedarone initiation among dronedarone users. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data in the MarketScan database between July 20, 2009, and December 31, 2011, and in the InVision Data Mart database between July 20, 2009, and March 31, 2012, were analyzed. The study population included patients who received ≥1 dronedarone prescription during the study period. The following variables were reported: worsening of or hospitalization for HF, concomitant prescribing of potent cytochrome P450 CYP 3A4 inhibitors or QT-prolonging drugs, and creatinine testing. RESULTS: There were 31,408 and 7025 dronedarone users identified in the MarketScan and InVision Data Mart databases, respectively. Approximately 86% to 90% of patients had a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in each database. In the MarketScan database, 40% were women and 54% were aged ≥65 years. In the InVision Data Mart database, 31% were women and 32% were aged ≥65 years. The corresponding prevalence of worsening or hospitalization for HF was 6.4% (95% CI, 6.2-6.7) and 4.7% (95% CI, 4.2-5.2) in each database, respectively. The corresponding estimates of concomitant prescribing of potent cytochrome P450 CYP 3A4 inhibitors and QT-prolonging drugs within 30 days before initiation or refilling of dronedarone were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8-2.1) and 10.0% (95% CI, 9.7-10.4), respectively, in the MarketScan database, and 2.3% (95% CI, 2.0-2.7) and 11.2% (95% CI, 10.5-12.0) in the InVision Data Mart database. More than 50% of patients in each database had serum creatinine tests conducted after dronedarone initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present analysis based on a long-term follow-up (nearly 3 years) were consistent with the previous findings that dronedarone has mostly been used appropriately in compliance with US prescribing in the target populations.

Evaluation of dronedarone use in the US patient population between 2009 and 2010: a descriptive study using a claims database.

BACKGROUND: The utilization pattern of dronedarone was unknown, especially regarding prescribers' compliance with the product's prescribing information (PI) following its availability and the implementation of the Food and Drug Administration-approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for the drug in the United States. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the dronedarone prescribers' adherence to PI regarding the following contraindications: (1) patients with heart failure (HF) with a recent decompensation requiring hospitalization or referral to a specialist, (2) concomitant use of potent CYP3A4 inhibitors, and (3) concomitant use of QT-prolonging drugs. METHODS: Patients prescribed dronedarone between July 2009 and August 2010 were identified through LabRx. The following rates surrounding dronedarone use were examined: (1) atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in the past year, (2) worsening or hospitalization for HF within the month before prescription, and (3) concomitant prescription of potent CYP3A4 inhibitors and concomitant prescription of QT-prolonging drugs within the following month. RESULTS: A total of 4595 dronedarone prescriptions were filled by 1820 patients. More than 94% of the participants had ≥1 diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in the previous year. Worsening of or hospitalization for HF was found in 61 (3.4%) patients within the month before receiving dronedarone, including 18 patients with HF as the primary cause for hospitalization. Potent CYP3A4 inhibitors were prescribed to 10 (0.6%) patients within a month following dronedarone initiation, 6 of whom received them for topical use only. QT-prolonging drugs were prescribed to 67 (3.7%) patients within a month following dronedarone initiation, among which >90% were other antiarrhythmics. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone was used mostly in compliance with PI and risk evaluation and mitigation strategy in the studied population. In the LabRx database, dronedarone was commonly dispensed to patients with cardiovascular risk factors and rarely dispensed to patients with contraindications such as worsening HF or hospitalization for HF or with concomitant prescriptions of potent CYP3A4 inhibitors, QT-prolonging drugs, or both.