IN.PACT AV Access Trial: Economic Evaluation of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Dysfunctional Arteriovenous Fistulae Based on 12-Month Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To study, from a U.S. payer's perspective, the economic consequences of drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) use for the treatment of stenotic lesions in dysfunctional hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost differences between DCBs and PTA at year 1 and beyond were calculated via 2 methods. The first approach used the mean absolute number of trial-observed access circuit reinterventions through 12 months (0.65 ± 1.05 vs 1.05 ± 1.18 events per patient for DCBs and PTA, respectively) and projected treatment outcomes to 3 years. The second approach was based on the trial-observed access circuit primary patency rates at 12 months (53.8% vs 32.4%) and calculated the cost difference on the basis of previously published Medicare cost for patients who maintained or did not maintain primary patency. Assumptions regarding DCB device prices were tested in sensitivity analyses, and the numbers needed to treat were calculated. RESULTS: Using the absolute number of access circuit reinterventions approach, the DCB strategy resulted in an estimated per-patient savings of $1,632 at 1 year and $4,263 at 3 years before considering the DCB device cost. The access circuit primary patency approach was associated with a per-patient cost savings of $2,152 at 1 year and $3,894 at 2.5 years of follow-up. At the theoretical DCB device reimbursement of $1,800, savings were $1,680 and $2,049 at 2.5 and 3 years, respectively. The one-year NNT of DCB compared to PTA was 2.48. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular therapy for arteriovenous access stenosis with the IN.PACT AV DCB can be expected to be cost-saving if longer follow-up data confirm its clinical effectiveness.

Long-term safety of drug-coated devices for peripheral revascularisation.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of randomised trials of paclitaxel-coated peripheral devices found an association with worse long-term survival. AIMS: We aimed to assess long-term mortality in patients treated with drug-coated versus non-drug-coated devices who are insured by Medicare Advantage (MA), an alternative to traditional Medicare that represents >30% of the Medicare eligible population. We analysed data from an MA administrative claims data source that includes both inpatient and outpatient femoropopliteal artery revascularisation procedures. METHODS: Patients treated with or without drug-coated devices for femoropopliteal artery revascularisation from 4/2015-12/2017 were studied using Optum's De-identified Clinformatics Datamart Database. Mortality was assessed up to December 2019 using Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for differences between groups. RESULTS: Of 16,796 patients revascularised, 4,427 (26.4%) were treated with drug-coated devices: 3,600 (81.3%) balloons and 827 (18.7%) stents. The median follow-up was 2.66 years (IQR 2.02-3.52). Treatment with drug-coated devices was associated with similar long-term mortality to non-drug-coated devices (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10; p=0.39). Results were comparable for patients treated with balloons alone (adjusted HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92-1.08; p=0.96) or stents (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88-1.18; p=0.78). These findings did not differ based on treatment setting, disease severity, age, sex or comorbidity burden (interaction p>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, there was no evidence of increased long-term mortality following treatment with drug-coated devices.

A study of compliance with FDA recommendations for pemoline (Cylert).

OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with product labeling recommendations to use pemoline as second-line therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to obtain baseline and biweekly liver enzyme tests. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data to identify first-line therapies and liver enzyme tests among pemoline users between January 1, 1998, and March 31, 2000. Prescriptions for first-line therapy were searched for 90 days prior to the first pemoline claim. Liver enzyme testing (baseline and follow-up) was compared between two groups (the prerecommendation cohort October 1,1998, to March 31, 1999, and the postrecommendation cohort October 1,1999, to March 31,2000). RESULTS: 1,308 patients received at least one pemoline prescription during the study period; 76% of patients < or = 20 years were male. ADHD was the claims-identified indication for 688 patients (52%). Despite the labeling recommendation for use as second-line therapy, only 237 ADHD patients (34%) received a first-line therapy prior to pemoline. Only 12% and 11% of the pre- and post-cohort patients, respectively, received baseline liver enzyme tests; 9% in the pre- and 12% in the post-cohort received at least one liver enzyme follow-up test. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with product labeling was low for both recommendations. Understanding the reasons for this finding could help improve risk management strategies.

The risk of esophageal obstruction associated with an anti-allergy medication (Claritin-D 24-Hour--original formulation).

PURPOSE: To investigate a possible increased risk of esophageal obstruction among users of loratadine and pseudoephedrine (Claritin-D 24-Hour [C-D 24], the original, round, extended-release formulation) compared to two other tablet formulations of loratadine. METHODS: Pharmacy data of 12 managed care plans were screened to identify users in the three groups from 1 September 1996 to 31 December 1998. Users with a medical claim following their first loratadine prescription (Index prescription) indicating an esophageal obstruction or endoscopic procedure were considered claims-identified cases. Medical records were reviewed to validate case status. RESULTS: There were 233,901 users (61% female) and 245 claims-identified cases occurring within 30 days after the first prescription. The incidence rate per 10,000 users of claims-identified cases occurring on the Index prescription date was higher among C-D 24 users (IR = 1.4) than Claritin Regular (C-R) users (IR = 0.07; p < 0.002) or Claritin-D 12-Hour (C-D 12) users (IR = 0.3; p > 0.05). Medical record review of 15 claims-identified cases confirmed two cases of acute esophageal obstruction, both among C-D 24 users. CONCLUSIONS: Claims-based analysis suggested an increased risk of endoscopic procedures on the Index date among C-D 24 users compared to C-R users. However, after medical record review, the study did not provide conclusive evidence of an association between C-D 24 use and esophageal obstruction. This study highlights the importance of validating findings from claims data using medical records.

Effect of tiered prescription copayments on the use of preferred brand medications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health plans are increasingly using more open drug formularies that offer differential prescription copayments as an incentive to enrollees to use brands that plans prefer. How much this financial incentive affects use of preferred brands has not been widely reported. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of tiered copayments on the choice between preferred and nonpreferred brand medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Longitudinal logistic regression analyses of pharmacy claims from 1998 and 1999 comparing concurrent groups that were or were not exposed to tiered copayments. SUBJECTS: Enrollees in four independent physician practice association model health plans who had pharmacy claims for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), proton pump inhibitors (PPI), or hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (STATINS). OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in the percentage of prescription claims that were for preferred brands. MAIN RESULTS: Regression adjusted estimates of the average net increase in the percentage use of preferred brands of ACEI, PPI and STATIN from first quarter 1998 to third quarter 1999 attributed to tiered prescription copayments were 13.3 (P = 0.001), 8.9 (P = 0.03), and 6.0 (P <0.001) percentage points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tiered prescription copayments were associated with a significant shift from nonpreferred to preferred brand medications. This type of financial incentive can help purchasers providing open access drug benefits by steering use of medications toward lower cost brands. The clinical effects of changes in medication use brought about differential copayments warrant further investigation.