Randomized Experiments to Reduce Overuse of Health Care: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Health care overuse is pervasive in countries with advanced health care delivery systems. We hypothesize that effective interventions to reduce low-value care that targets patients or clinicians are mediated by psychological and cognitive processes that change behaviors and that interventions targeting these processes are varied. Thus, we performed a scoping review of experimental studies of interventions, including the interventions' objectives and characteristics, to reduce low-value care that targeted psychological and cognitive processes. METHODS: We systematically searched databases for experimental studies of interventions to change cognitive orientations and affective states in the setting of health care overuse. Outcomes included observed overuse or a stated intention to use services. We used existing frameworks for behavior change and mechanisms of change to categorize the interventions and the mediating processes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studied the provision of information to patients or clinicians, with most providing cost information. Six studies used educational interventions, including the provision of feedback about individual practice. Studies rarely used counseling, behavioral nudges, persuasion, and rewards. Mechanisms for behavior change included gain in knowledge or confidence and motivation by social norms. CONCLUSIONS: In this scoping review, we found few experiments testing interventions that directly target the psychological and cognitive processes of patients or clinicians to reduce low-value care. Most studies provided information to patients or clinicians without measuring or considering mediating factors toward behavior change. These findings highlight the need for process-driven experimental designs, including trials of behavioral nudges and persuasive language involving a trusting patient-clinician relationship, to identify effective interventions to reduce low-value care.

Hydroxychloroquine lowers Alzheimer's disease and related dementias risk and rescues molecular phenotypes related to Alzheimer's disease.

We recently nominated cytokine signaling through the Janus-kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK/STAT) pathway as a potential AD drug target. As hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has recently been shown to inactivate STAT3, we hypothesized that it may impact AD pathogenesis and risk. Among 109,124 rheumatoid arthritis patients from routine clinical care, HCQ initiation was associated with a lower risk of incident AD compared to methotrexate initiation across 4 alternative analyses schemes addressing specific types of biases including informative censoring, reverse causality, and outcome misclassification (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] of 0.92 [0.83-1.00], 0.87 [0.81-0.93], 0.84 [0.76-0.93], and 0.87 [0.75-1.01]). We additionally show that HCQ exerts dose-dependent effects on late long-term potentiation (LTP) and rescues impaired hippocampal synaptic plasticity prior to significant accumulation of amyloid plaques and neurodegeneration in APP/PS1 mice. Additionally, HCQ treatment enhances microglial clearance of Aß1-42, lowers neuroinflammation, and reduces tau phosphorylation in cell culture-based phenotypic assays. Finally, we show that HCQ inactivates STAT3 in microglia, neurons, and astrocytes suggesting a plausible mechanism associated with its observed effects on AD pathogenesis. HCQ, a relatively safe and inexpensive drug in current use may be a promising disease-modifying AD treatment. This hypothesis merits testing through adequately powered clinical trials in at-risk individuals during preclinical stages of disease progression.

Assessing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Real-World Data.

Increasing availability of real-world data (RWD) generated from patient care enables the generation of evidence to inform clinical decisions for subpopulations of patients and perhaps even individuals. There is growing opportunity to identify important heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in these subgroups. Thus, HTE is relevant to all with interest in patients' responses to interventions, including regulators who must make decisions about products when signals of harms arise postapproval and payers who make coverage decisions based on expected net benefit to their beneficiaries. Prior work discussed HTE in randomized studies. Here, we address methodological considerations when investigating HTE in observational studies. We propose 4 primary goals of HTE analyses and the corresponding approaches in the context of RWD: to confirm subgroup effects, to describe the magnitude of HTE, to discover clinically important subgroups, and to predict individual effects. We discuss other possible goals including exploring prognostic score- and propensity score-based treatment effects, and testing the transportability of trial results to populations different from trial participants. Finally, we outline methodological needs for enhancing real-world HTE analysis.

Comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in asthma: A target trial emulation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We emulated a hypothetical randomized trial using electronic health records from a large US-based academic health care system. Participants aged 18 years or older with baseline IgE levels between 30 and 700 IU/mL and peripheral eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL were eligible for study inclusion. The study period extended from March 2016 to August 2021. Outcomes included the incidence of asthma-related exacerbations and change in baseline FEV1 value over 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 68 individuals receiving dupilumab, 68 receiving omalizumab, and 65 receiving mepolizumab met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 exacerbations occurred over 68 person years (0.46 exacerbations per person year) in the dupilumab group, 63 over 68 person years (0.93 per person year) in the omalizumab group, and 86 over 65 person years (1.32 per person year) in the mepolizumab group (adjusted incidence rate ratios: dupilumab vs mepolizumab, 0.28 [95% CI = 0.09-0.84]; dupilumab vs omalizumab, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.12-1.09]; and omalizumab vs mepolizumab, 0.78 [95% CI = 0.32-1.91]). The differences in the change in FEV1 comparing patients who received the different biologics were as follows: 0.11 L (95% CI = -0.003 to 0.222 L) for dupilumab versus mepolizumab, 0.082 L (95% CI -0.040 to 0.204 L) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, and 0.026 L (95% CI -0.083 to 0.140 L) for omalizumab versus mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with asthma and eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL and IgE levels of 30 to 700 kU/L, dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in exacerbation and FEV1 value than omalizumab and mepolizumab.

Reducing Overuse by Healthcare Systems: A Positive Deviance Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare in the USA is increasingly delivered by large healthcare systems that include one or more hospitals and associated outpatient practices. It is unclear what role healthcare systems play in driving or preventing overutilization of healthcare services in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To learn how high-value healthcare systems avoid overuse of services DESIGN: We identified "positive deviant" health systems using a previously constructed Overuse Index. These systems have much lower-than-average overuse of healthcare services. We confirmed that these health systems also delivered high-quality care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with executive leaders of these systems to validate a published framework for understanding drivers of overuse. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders at select healthcare systems in the USA. INTERVENTIONS: None APPROACH: We developed an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews. We iteratively developed a code book. Paired reviewers coded and reconciled each interview. We analyzed the interviews by applying constant comparative techniques. We mapped the emergent themes to provide the first empirical data to support a previously developed theoretical framework. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 15 leaders from 10 diverse healthcare systems. Consistent with important domains from the overuse framework, themes from our study support the role of clinicians and patients in avoiding overuse. The leaders described how they create a culture of professional practice and how they modify clinicians' attitudes to facilitate high-value practices. They also described how their patients view healthcare consumption and the characteristics of their patient populations allowed them to practice high-value medicine. They described the role of quality metrics, insurance plan ownership, and alternative payment model participation as encouraging avoidance of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative analysis of positive deviant health systems supports the framework that is in the published literature, although health system leaders also described their financial structures as another important factor for reducing overuse and encouraging high-value care delivery.

Development and Validation of the Summary Elixhauser Comorbidity Score for Use With ICD-10-CM-Coded Data Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have many comorbidities contributing to mortality. OBJECTIVE: To develop a summary Elixhauser (S-Elixhauser) comorbidity score to predict 30-day, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality in older adults using the 38 comorbidities operationalized by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries from 2017 to 2019. PATIENTS: Persons hospitalized in 2018 (n = 899 844) and 3 disease-specific hospitalized cohorts. MEASUREMENTS: Weights were derived for 38 comorbidities to predict 30-day, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality. The S-Elixhauser score was internally validated and calibrated. Individual Elixhauser comorbidity indicators (38 comorbidities), the modified application of the AHRQ-derived Elixhauser summary score, the Charlson comorbidity indicators (17 comorbidities), and the Charlson summary score were externally validated. The c-statistic was used to evaluate discrimination of a comorbidity score model. RESULTS: The S-Elixhauser score was well calibrated and internally validated, with a c-statistic of 0.705 (95% CI, 0.703 to 0.707) in predicting 30-day mortality, 0.654 (CI, 0.651 to 0.657) for in-hospital mortality, and 0.743 (CI, 0.741 to 0.744) for 1-year mortality. In external validation of other comorbidity indices for 30-day mortality, the c-statistic was 0.711 (CI, 0.709 to 0.713) for the individual Elixhauser comorbidity indicators, 0.688 (CI, 0.686 to 0.690) for the AHRQ Elixhauser score, 0.696 (CI, 0.694 to 0.698) for the Charlson comorbidity indicators, and 0.690 (CI, 0.688 to 0.693) for the Charlson summary score. In 3 disease-specific populations, the discrimination of the S-Elixhauser score in predicting 30-day mortality ranged from 0.657 to 0.732. LIMITATION: Validation of the S-Elixhauser comorbidity score and head-to-head comparison with other comorbidity scores in an external population are needed to evaluate comparative performance. CONCLUSION: The S-Elixhauser comorbidity score is well calibrated and internally validated but its advantage over the AHRQ Elixhauser and Charlson summary scores is unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/µL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4). CONCLUSION: There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

A Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Antivirals for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: The PRIORITIZE Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multiple direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are available to treat HCV genotype 1 infection. However, comparative effectiveness from randomized controlled trials of DAA regimens is unavailable. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (NCT02786537) to compare the effectiveness of DAAs for HCV genotype 1a or 1b on viral response, safety, tolerability, and medication nonadherence. Adults with compensated liver disease, HCV genotype 1, not pregnant or breastfeeding, and with health insurance likely to cover ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) were recruited from 34 US viral hepatitis clinics. Participants were randomized (± ribavirin) to LDV/SOF, elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR), and paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir+dasabuvir (PrOD; treatment arm stopped early). Primary outcomes included sustained viral response at 12 weeks (SVR12), clinician-recorded adverse events, patient-reported symptoms, and medication nonadherence. Between June 2016 and March 2018, 1,609 participants were randomized. Among 1,128 participants who received ≥1 dose of EBR/GZR or LDV/SOF (± ribavirin), SVR12 was 95.2% (95% CI, 92.8%-97.6%) and 97.4% (95% CI, 95.5%-99.2%), respectively, with a difference estimate of 2.2% (-0.5% to 4.7%), falling within the "equivalence" interval (-5% to 5%). While most (56%) participants experienced adverse events, few were serious (4.2%) or severe (1.8%). In the absence of ribavirin, discontinuations due to adverse events were rare. Patient-reported symptoms and medication nonadherence were similar. Study limitations were dropout due to insurance denial and loss to follow-up after treatment, limiting the ability to measure SVR12. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic trial demonstrated high SVR12 for participants treated with EBR/GZR and LDV/SOF with few adverse effects. Overall, the two regimens were equivalent in effectiveness. The results support current HCV guidelines that do not distinguish between ribavirin-free EBR/GZR and LDV/SOF.

Clinical Care Among Individuals with Prediabetes in Primary Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of diabetes in the general US population (6.7 per 1000 adults in 2018) has not changed significantly since 2000, suggesting that individuals with prediabetes are not connecting to evidence-based interventions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the clinical care of individuals with prediabetes, determine patient factors associated with this care, and evaluate risk for diabetes development. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked claims and electronic health record data. PARTICIPANTS: We created a cohort of adults with prediabetes based on laboratory measures. We excluded patients with a prior history of diabetes, pregnancy in prior 6 months, or recent steroid use. MAIN MEASURES: We measured ordering and completion of clinical services targeting prediabetes management and diabetes incidence within 12 months following cohort entry. We tested the strength of the association between individuals' characteristics and outcomes of interest using bivariate and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Our cohort included 3888 patients with a laboratory diagnosis of prediabetes (incident or prevalent prediabetes). Within 12 months, 63.4% had repeat glycemic testing, yet only 10.4% had coded diagnoses of prediabetes, 1.0% were referred for nutrition services, and 5.4% were prescribed metformin. Most patients completed labs and nutrition visits when referred and filled metformin when prescribed. Individuals with a higher glycemic level or BMI were more likely to receive prediabetes clinical care. Six percent of individuals developed diabetes within 12 months of cohort entry and had higher glycemic levels and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. In the adjusted model, Black individuals had 1.4 times higher odds of developing diabetes than White individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of prediabetes clinical care activities are low and have not improved. Strategies are urgently needed to improve prediabetes care delivery thereby preventing or delaying incident diabetes.

Treatment of Acute Pain in Adults With Sickle Cell Disease in an Infusion Center Versus the Emergency Department : A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) have vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs). Infusion centers (ICs) are alternatives to emergency department (ED) care and may improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether care in ICs or EDs leads to better outcomes for the treatment of uncomplicated VOCs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02411396). SETTING: 4 U.S. sites, with recruitment between April 2015 and December 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with SCD living within 60 miles of a study site. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were followed for 18 months after enrollment. Outcomes of interest were time to first dose of parenteral pain medication, whether pain reassessment was completed within 30 minutes after the first dose, and patient disposition on discharge from the acute care visit. Treatment effects for ICs versus EDs were estimated using a time-varying propensity score adjustment. RESULTS: Researchers enrolled 483 participants; the 269 who had acute care visits on weekdays are included in this report. With inverse probability of treatment-weighted adjustment, the mean time to first dose was 62 minutes in ICs and 132 minutes in EDs; the difference was 70 minutes (95% CI, 54 to 98 minutes; E-value, 2.8). The probability of pain reassessment within 30 minutes of the first dose of parenteral pain medication was 3.8 times greater (CI, 2.63 to 5.64 times greater; E-value, 4.7) in the IC than the ED. The probability that a participant's visit would end in admission to the hospital was smaller by a factor of 4 (0.25 [CI, 0.18 to 0.33]) with treatment in an IC versus an ED. LIMITATION: The study was restricted to participants with uncomplicated VOCs. CONCLUSION: In adults with SCD having a VOC, treatment in an IC is associated with substantially better outcomes than treatment in an ED. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Association Between Chronic Use of Immunosuppresive Drugs and Clinical Outcomes From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalization: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Large US Health System.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs worsens or improves the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with plausible mechanisms for both. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in 2121 consecutive adults with acute inpatient hospital admission between 4 March and 29 August 2020 with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in a large academic health system, with adjustment for confounding with propensity score-derived stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Chronic immunosuppression was defined as prescriptions for immunosuppressive drugs current at the time of admission. Outcomes included mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: There were 2121 patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed (1967, 93%) or suspected (154, 7%) COVID-19 during the study period, with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 40-67). Of these, 108 (5%) were classified as immunosuppressed before COVID-19, primarily with prednisone (>7.5 mg/day), tacrolimus, or mycophenolate mofetil. Among the entire cohort, 311 (15%) received mechanical ventilation; the median (interquartile range) length of stay was 5.2 (2.5-10.6) days, and 1927 (91%) survived to discharge. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in the risk of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], .79; 95% confidence interval [CI], .46-1.35), in-hospital mortality (HR, .66; 95% CI, .28-1.55), or length of stay (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, .92-1.47) among individuals with immunosuppression and counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs was neither associated with worse nor better clinical outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in one US health system.

To Expand the Evidence Base About Harms from Tests and Treatments.

Rigorous evidence about the broad range of harms that might be experienced by a patient in the course of testing and treatment is sparse. We aimed to generate recommendations for how researchers might more comprehensively evaluate potential harms of healthcare interventions, to allow clinicians and patients to better include this evidence in clinical decision-making. We propose seven domains of harms of tests and treatments that are relevant to patients: (1) physical impairment, (2) psychological distress, (3) social disruption, (4) disruption in connection to healthcare, (5) labeling, (6) financial impact, and (7) treatment burden. These domains will include a range of severity of harms and variation in timing after testing or treatment, attributable to the service itself or a resulting care cascade. Although some new measures may be needed, diverse data and tools are available to allow the assessment of harms comprehensively across these domains. We encourage researchers to evaluate harms in sub-populations, since the harms experienced may differ importantly by demographics, social determinants, presence of comorbid illness, psychological state, and other characteristics. Regulators, funders, and editors might require either assessment or reporting of harms in each domain or require justification for inclusion and exclusion of different domains.

Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes.

Time is of the essence in evaluating potential drugs and biologics for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. There are currently 876 randomized clinical trials (phase 2 and 3) of treatments for COVID-19 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method with potential to improve precision and reduce the required sample size for a substantial number of these trials. Though covariate adjustment is recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, it is underutilized, especially for the types of outcomes (binary, ordinal, and time-to-event) that are common in COVID-19 trials. To demonstrate the potential value added by covariate adjustment in this context, we simulated two-arm, randomized trials comparing a hypothetical COVID-19 treatment versus standard of care, where the primary outcome is binary, ordinal, or time-to-event. Our simulated distributions are derived from two sources: longitudinal data on over 500 patients hospitalized at Weill Cornell Medicine New York Presbyterian Hospital and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention preliminary description of 2449 cases. In simulated trials with sample sizes ranging from 100 to 1000 participants, we found substantial precision gains from using covariate adjustment-equivalent to 4-18% reductions in the required sample size to achieve a desired power. This was the case for a variety of estimands (targets of inference). From these simulations, we conclude that covariate adjustment is a low-risk, high-reward approach to streamlining COVID-19 treatment trials. We provide an R package and practical recommendations for implementation.

Assessing and communicating heterogeneity of treatment effects for patient subpopulations: Panel discussion on considerations in design and analysis.

Clinical trials are primarily conducted to understand the average effects treatments have on patients. However, patients are heterogeneous in the severity of the condition and in ways that affect what treatment effect they can expect. It is therefore important to understand and characterize how treatment effects vary. The design and analysis of clinical studies play critical roles in evaluating and characterizing heterogeneous treatment effects. This panel discussed considerations in design and analysis under the recognition that there are heterogeneous treatment effects across subgroups of patients. Panel members discussed many questions including: What is a good estimate of the treatment effect in me, a 65-year-old, bald, Caucasian-American, male patient? What magnitude of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is sufficiently large to merit attention? What role can prior evidence about HTE play in confirmatory trial design and analysis? Is there anything described in the 21st Century Cures Act that would benefit from greater attention to HTE? An example of a Bayesian approach addressing multiplicity when testing for treatment effects in subgroups will be provided. We can do more or better at understanding heterogeneous treatment effects and providing the best information on heterogeneous treatment effects.

Effect of delays in initiation of adjuvant endocrine therapy on survival among women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Delays in initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) are a cause for concern among women with breast cancer and clinicians, but the impact of delayed AET on overall survival (OS) is unclear. This study seeks to describe the relationship between delayed AET and OS. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women with stage II and III hormone receptor positive, human epidermal receptor 2 negative, invasive breast cancer, identified from the National Cancer Database. The primary exposure delayed AET, was defined as initiation of AET more than 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis. Using logistic regression, we examined predictors of delayed AET. The survival analysis with Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Among the 391,594 included women, 12,162 (3.1%) had delayed AET. Predictors of delayed AET included Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-1.70) or Hispanic ethnicity (aOR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.35) vs white race, Medicare (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20) or Medicaid (aOR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.32-1.50) versus private insurance, and cancer stage III (aOR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.19-1.30) vs stage II. With median follow-up of 67.4 months, 67,335 (17.2%) patients died. Delayed AET had no statistically significant effect on the hazard of death (adjusted hazards ratio = 1.01; 95% CI 0.96-1.06) compared to initiation within 12 months of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there may be no adverse impact on survival if initiation of AET occurs 12 to 24 months after initial diagnosis compared to within 12 months of diagnosis as currently recommended.

Understanding Geographic Variation in Systemic Overuse Among the Privately Insured.

BACKGROUND: Medical care overuse is a significant source of patient harm and wasteful spending. Understanding the drivers of overuse is essential to the design of effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: We tested the association between structural factors of the health care delivery system and regional differences systemic overuse. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of deidentified claims for 18- to 64-year-old adults from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. We calculated a semiannual Johns Hopkins Overuse Index for each of the 375 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States, from January 2011 to June 2015. We fit an ordinary least squares regression to model the Johns Hopkins Overuse Index as a function of regional characteristics of the health care system, adjusted for confounders and time. RESULTS: The supply of regional health care resources was associated with systemic overuse in commercially insured beneficiaries. Regional characteristics associated with systemic overuse included number of physicians per 1000 residents (P=0.001) and higher Medicare malpractice geographic price cost index (P<0.001). Regions with a higher density of primary care physicians (P=0.008) and a higher proportion of hospital-based providers (P=0.016) had less systemic overuse. Differences in hospital and insurer market power were inversely associated with systemic overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic overuse is associated with observable, structural characteristics of the regional health care system. These findings suggest that interventions that aim to improve care efficiency via reductions in overuse should focus on the structural drivers of this phenomenon, rather than on the eradication of individual overused procedures.

Association Between Filgrastim Biosimilar Availability and Changes in Claim Payments and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Filgrastim Products.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of filgrastim-sndz market entry on patient out-of-pocket costs and claim payments for filgrastim products. METHODS: This study used a single interrupted time series design with longitudinal, nationally representative, individual-level claims data from IBM MarketScan. Analyses included all outpatient and prescription claims for branded filgrastim (filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim) and biosimilar filgrastim (filgrastim-sndz) from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. Outcomes of interest included changes in monthly claim payments and monthly patient out-of-pocket costs for filgrastim products. RESULTS: In the baseline period (January 2014 to February 2016), insurers paid an average of $472.21 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 465.38-479.03) for 480 mcg of branded filgrastim, whereas patients paid an average of $49.26 (CI: 34.25-64.27). Filgrastim-sndz market entry was associated with a statistically significant and immediate 1-month decrease in insurer payment of $30.77 (95% CI: -40.59 to -20.94) and a significant decrease in monthly insurer payment trend of $3.10 per month (95% CI: -3.90 to -2.31) relative to baseline. Long-term changes in patient out-of-pocket costs were modest and restricted to beneficiaries enrolled in high cost sharing plans. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim availability led to significant immediate and long-term decreases in claims payments for filgrastim products, supporting efforts to facilitate biosimilar adoption in the United States. Nevertheless, there were only slight changes in patient out-of-pocket costs, restricted to beneficiaries enrolled in high cost sharing plans, suggesting the importance of further work assessing the relationship between biosimilar availability and patient out-of-pocket costs.

Differences in Opioid Prescribing Among Generalist Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are differences in opioid prescribing among generalist physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) to Medicare Part D beneficiaries. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional analysis of prescription claims from 2013 to 2016 using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. SUBJECTS: All generalist physicians, NPs, and PAs who provided more than 10 total prescription claims between 2013 and 2016 were included. These prescribers were subsetted as practicing in a primary care, urgent care, or hospital-based setting. METHODS: The main outcomes were total opioid claims and opioid claims as a proportion of all claims in patients treated by these prescribers in each of the three settings of interest. Binomial regression was used to generate marginal estimates to allow comparison of the volume of claims by these prescribers with adjustment for practice setting, gender, years of practice, median income of the ZIP code, state fixed effects, and relevant interaction terms. RESULTS: There were 36,999 generalist clinicians (physicians, NPs, and PAs) with at least one year of Part D prescription drug claims data between 2013 and 2016. The number of adjusted total opioid claims across these four years for physicians was 660 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 660-661), for NPs was 755 (95% CI = 753-757), and for PAs was 812 (95% CI = 811-814). CONCLUSIONS: We find relatively high rates of opioid prescribing among NPs and PAs, especially at the upper margins. This suggests that well-designed interventions to improve the safety of NP and PA opioid prescribing, along with that of their physician colleagues, could be especially beneficial.

National trends in hydroxyurea and opioid prescribing for sickle cell disease by office-based physicians in the United States, 1997-2017.

PURPOSE: To identify trends in physician drug prescribing practices for sickle cell disease (SCD). METHODS: We used data from the National Disease and Therapeutic Index to evaluate medications prescribed to children (definition: aged 19 years or younger) and adults (20 years or older) with SCD by office-based physicians in the United States during 1997 to 2017. Prescriptions were evaluated in 3-year intervals. RESULTS: The proportion of SCD visits that included new/continued hydroxyurea prescriptions increased from less than or equal to 8% before 2009 to 33% in 2015 to 2017. The increase was significant in visits by children (2.5% in 1997-1999 to 47% in 2015-2017; P = .003 by Spearman's rank-order correlation) but not in adults (6.9% to 11%; P = .12). Opioids, started/continued in 13% (lowest 3-year average) to 35% (highest) of visits by children and 55% to 81% of visits by adults, remained the most frequently prescribed medications for SCD overall. There were no significant changes over time in opioid prescribing for adults (P = .64) or children (P = .38). Hematologists/oncologists accounted for a higher proportion of visits by children (67.2% over 1997-2017) than adults (25.2%), while emergency medicine visits were higher in adults (14.0%) than children (2.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a robust increase in hydroxyurea prescribing for children with SCD. The BABY HUG trial, which demonstrated safety and efficacy of starting hydroxyurea in infancy and informed current SCD guidelines recommending broader use in children, may have contributed to this increase. However, hydroxyurea prescribing for adults remains infrequent and considerably lower than opioids. Barriers in access to specialist care persist for adults with SCD.