Adherence and discontinuation of prescription cannabidiol for the management of seizure disorders at an integrated care center.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate adherence, discontinuation rates, and reasons for non-adherence and discontinuation of prescription CBD during the 12-months post-initiation period at an integrated care center. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients prescribed CBD by a neurology clinic provider with initial prescription fulfillment through the center's specialty pharmacy from January 2019 through April 2020. Baseline demographics and reasons for non-adherence and/or discontinuation were collected from the electronic health record and pharmacy claims history was used to calculate adherence using proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients were included in the PDC analysis if they had at least 3 fills during the study period. Non-adherence was defined as a PDC < 0.8. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data with categorical variables represented as frequencies and percentages and continuous variables as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). RESULTS: We included 136 patients with a median age of 14 years (IQR 9 - 21). Most patients were white (n = 115, 85%), with a diagnosis of intractable epilepsy (n = 100, 74%). Among the 128 patients with 3 or more fills, the median PDC was 0.99 (IQR 0.95 - 1.00) with non-adherence seen in 6% (n = 8) of patients. The most common reason for non-adherence was side effects (n = 2, 25%). Prescription CBD was discontinued by 23% (n = 31) of patients with a median time to discontinuation of 117 days (IQR 68 - 216). The most common reason for discontinuation was major side effects (n = 12, 39%). The most common side effects leading to discontinuation were agitation/irritability (n = 4), mood changes (n = 4), aggressive behavior (n = 3), and increased seizure frequency (n = 3). CONCLUSION: Adherence to prescription CBD at an integrated care center was high with approximately 94% of patients considered adherent. Providers and pharmacists may improve adherence and discontinuation rates by educating patients on the timeline of response, potential side effects, and potential for dose adjustments.

Insurance Approval Delay of Biologic Therapy Dose Escalation Associated with Disease Activity in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Dose escalation of self-injectable biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases may be required to counteract loss of response and/or low drug levels. Payors often require completion of a prior authorization (PA), which is a complex approval pathway before providing coverage. If the initial PA request is denied, clinic staff must complete a time and resource-intensive process to obtain medication approval. AIMS: This study measured time from decision to dose escalate to insurance approval and evaluated impact of approval time on disease activity. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of adult patients with IBD prescribed an escalated dose of biologic therapy at an academic center with an integrated specialty pharmacy team from January to December 2018. Outcomes included time to insurance approval and the association between approval time and follow-up C-reactive protein (CRP) and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) scores. Associations were tested using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: 220 patients were included, median age 39, 53% female, and 96% white. Overall median time from decision to dose escalate to insurance approval was 7 days [interquartile range (IQR) 1, 14]. Approval time was delayed when an appeal was required [median of 29 days (IQR 17, 43)]. Patients with a longer time to insurance approval were less likely to have CRP improvement (p = 0.019). Time to insurance approval did not significantly impact follow-up SIBDQ scores. CONCLUSION: Patients who had a longer time to insurance approval were less likely to have improvement in CRP, highlighting the negative clinical impact of a complex dose escalation process.

Primary medication nonadherence rates to specialty disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis within a health system specialty pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Assessing primary medication nonadherence, the rate at which a medication is prescribed for a patient but is not obtained or replaced with an alternative medication within a reasonable time period, can provide a better understanding of the frequency and impact of these barriers to medication access. Previous literature has reported high rates of primary medication nonadherence, ranging from approximately 20% to 55% in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with specialty disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The high primary medication nonadherence rate may reflect the difficulties associated with obtaining specialty medications, such as high costs, extended prior authorizations, and pretreatment safety requirements. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reasons for and rates of primary medication nonadherence to specialty DMARDs in patients with RA referred to an integrated health systems specialty pharmacy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining eligible patients with a specialty DMARD referral from a health system rheumatology provider to the health system specialty pharmacy. Initially, pharmacy claims were used to identify primary medication nonadherence, defined as the lack of a fill event within 60 days following the medication referral for patients without a specialty DMARD claim in the 180 days prior. Referrals from July 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021, were eligible. Exclusion criteria included duplicate referrals, use for non-RA indications, switches to clinic-administered therapies, and alternate filling methods. Medical record reviews were conducted to confirm referral outcomes. Outcomes included rate of and reasons for primary medication nonadherence. RESULTS: We included 480 eligible patients, 100 of whom had no documented fill event. After medical record review, 27 patients were removed due to having a non-RA diagnosis and 65 patients were removed due to having alternative fill methods, most due to external prescription routing (83.1%). The final primary medication nonadherence rate was 2.1%. Out of the 8 cases of true primary medication nonadherence, 3 patients held specialty DMARD therapy because of other existing disease states, 3 patients were unreachable, and 2 patients were unable to afford medication. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of primary medication nonadherence to specialty DMARDs were low in patients with RA managed by a health system specialty pharmacy. A total of 8 primary medication nonadherence cases were related to safety concerns in non-RA diseases states, patient unreachability, and affordability. However, the limited number of primary medication nonadherence cases limits the generalizability of reasons for primary medication nonadherence found in this study. Key elements of the health systems specialty pharmacy model that likely contribute to low primary medication nonadherence include dedicated financial assistance navigation services, in-clinic pharmacist availability, and open communication between provider offices.

Optimizing HIV PrEP Persistence: Does Your Pharmacy Matter?

Persistence to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is integral to preventing new HIV infections. Previous studies have shown real-world PrEP persistence is low and insight is needed into PrEP delivery strategies that improve persistence. This single-center, retrospective, cohort study measured persistence in patients filling PrEP through an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) compared to those filling at external pharmacies. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for persistence probability at 6, 12, and 18 months were 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.95), 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.86), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.76) for the HSSP cohort compared to 0.65 (95% CI 0.51-0.83), 0.41 (95% CI 0.28-0.62), and 0.32 (95% CI 0.2-0.53), respectively, for the non-HSSP cohort (log-rank p < 0.001, [Formula: see text] = 11.2). Cox PH modeling showed that patients using a non-HSSP were 2.7 times more likely to be non-persistent than HSSP patients (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7, p < 0.001, [Formula: see text] = 12.61), demonstrating patients were better maintained on PrEP therapy when their prescriptions were filled with the HSSP.

Development and implementation of a laboratory monitoring dashboard to reduce treatment gaps in inflammatory bowel disease.

PURPOSE: Patients receiving biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require routine laboratory monitoring to ensure the safety and efficacy of therapy. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the implementation of a dashboard to prevent treatment gaps by prospectively identifying patients with IBD and outdated laboratory results receiving biologics. METHODS: We performed a pre/post analysis of dashboard implementation to assess the number of patients with overdue laboratory work resulting in treatment gaps. The dashboard combined data from the electronic health record (EHR) and pharmacy claims database to identify patients on a biologic with laboratory tests (white blood cell count, liver transaminases, C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) completed 5 or more months ago and/or a tuberculosis screen completed 11 or more months ago. After implementation, specialty pharmacists reviewed the dashboard and communicated via EHR if a new prescription and laboratory tests were needed. Messages were sent 4 weeks in advance of the next refill-eligible date. Mixed methods were used for analysis of qualitative data, including surveys, and quantitative data, assessing treatment gap length. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients who had outdated laboratory values and required a new prescription (15 before dashboard implementation and 25 after implementation) were included in the analysis. The frequency of a treatment gap decreased from 80% (n = 12) in the preimplementation phase to 32% (n = 8) in the postimplementation phase. The median gap length was shorter after dashboard implementation, decreasing from 21 days (range, 3-97 days) to 11 days (range, 2-23 days). CONCLUSION: Utilization of a quality measures dashboard decreased treatment gaps in patients with IBD receiving biologic therapy. Integrated specialty pharmacists are uniquely positioned to monitor adherence to laboratory monitoring parameters for patients on biologics.

Specialty pharmacy integration and the role of an advanced certified pharmacy technician in prescription cannabidiol access.

BACKGROUND: Insurance requirements that limit access to prescription cannabidiol (CBD), an adjunct therapy for uncontrolled seizure disorders, may lead to treatment initiation delays. Integrated health-system specialty pharmacies (IHSSPs) use pharmacists and advance certified pharmacy technicians (CPhTs) to help navigate prescription CBD access requirements. OBJECTIVE(S): Evaluate time from initial specialty pharmacy referral to prescription CBD shipment. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients prescribed CBD from January 2019 to April 2020 by the outpatient neurology clinic and dispensed by the center's IHSSP. The primary outcome was the time to prescription CBD access, defined as days between the specialty pharmacy completing an initial patient assessment and first medication shipment. Secondary outcomes were percentage of patients requiring financial assistance and days between key steps in the access pathway. Data were collected from electronic health records and the specialty pharmacy patient management database. The CPhT was responsible for completing most portions of the access pathway under supervision of the clinical pharmacist. RESULTS: After screening, 136 patients were included: 50% male, 85% white, 60% insured by Medicaid, and median age 14 years (interquartile range [IQR] 9-21). The most common indication was Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (n = 117, 86%). Of the 129 patients (95%) who required a prior authorization (PA), 92% were approved (n = 119). Median time from initial assessment to first shipment was 7 days (IQR 4-13). Of patients for whom the CPhT helped obtain financial assistance (n = 14, 10%), all had $0 costs after assistance. Median times for secondary outcomes led by the CPhT in days were as follows: initial assessment completion to benefits investigation (BI) = 0 (IQR 0-0), BI to PA submission = 0 (IQR 0-0), and PA denial to appeal submission = 4 (IQR 1-7). CONCLUSION: IHSSP teams, particularly advanced CPhT roles, helped patients afford and initiate prescription CBD quickly.

Exploring healthcare providers' experiences with specialty medication and limited distribution networks.

Integrated health-system specialty pharmacies (IHSSP) have shown high medication access, adherence, and provider satisfaction. The goal of this study was to explore healthcare providers' experiences with specialty medications distributed via Limited Distribution Networks (LDN) that do not include IHSSPs. We investigated healthcare providers' perceived impact of LDNs on clinic workflow, clinical practice, and patient outcomes. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with fourteen healthcare providers from four outpatient specialty clinics at an academic health system with an IHSSP. Qualitative analysis using an iterative inductive/deductive approach of coded transcripts was used to identify themes. Participants discussed requirements and barriers to communicating with insurance providers, drug manufacturers, and external pharmacies; time and effort required to navigate LDNs and impact on workload and clinic workflow; financial awareness of medication costs and methods for communication about financial information with patients; and advocating for patients to ensure access to necessary therapy and avoid missed doses or treatment lapse. Participants reported barriers to navigating LDNs that can interfere with clinic workflow and patient care. IHSSPs may reduce clinic burden by helping patients access, afford, and remain on therapy.

Droxidopa management by an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy team.

BACKGROUND: Droxidopa, indicated for the treatment of symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, can be challenging for patients to access owing to manufacturer and payer restrictions, and requires close monitoring to ensure safety and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This practice report describes the development and outcomes of an integrated neurology specialty pharmacy team for droxidopa management. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: An integrated health-system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) connected to an academic institution with integrated specialty pharmacists working in collaboration with the providers in both the neurology and autonomic disfunction clinic. PRACTICE INNOVATION: In May 2017, the integrated HSSP developed droxidopa management services. Based on clinic-identified needs, the specialty pharmacy team completed droxidopa access requirements (insurance approval and affordability), provided comprehensive medication education at droxidopa initiation, and developed and executed droxidopa titration and monitoring plans in collaboration with providers. While patients were on droxidopa therapy, specialty pharmacist staff (pharmacists and technicians) monitored patients for safety and response to therapy and communicated with the health care team through the shared electronic health record. EVALUATION METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients with at least 3 fills of droxidopa using the integrated specialty pharmacy services from May 2017 to April 2020. Outcomes included persistence (defined as lack of 60-day gap in treatment), adherence (calculated using pharmacy claims and proportion of days covered [PDC]), and number and type of pharmacist interventions after droxidopa initiation. RESULTS: Of the 83 patients reviewed, 60 patients (72%) were persistent on droxidopa therapy over the study period. The median PDC was 0.98 (interquartile range 0.90-1.00). Over 36 months, the specialty pharmacist performed 60 interventions after droxidopa initiation, most related to dose changes, drug-drug interaction management, and medication reconciliation. CONCLUSION: The development of integrated specialty pharmacy services for patients prescribed droxidopa resulted in high droxidopa persistence and adherence. Interventions from the specialty pharmacist ensured droxidopa remained safe and appropriate for patients.

Primary medication nonadherence to oral oncology specialty medications.

BACKGROUND: Patients prescribed specialty oncology medications face logistical and financial challenges to medication procurement, leading to primary medication nonadherence (PMN). Limited research has evaluated rates and reasons for PMN within a specialty oncology population. Addressing PMN is essential to ensuring patient access and uptake and realizing benefits of these therapies. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compute the rates of and reasons for PMN in patients prescribed oral oncology medications at an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy (IHSSP). METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of specialty oncology prescriptions electronically prescribed between January and December 2018. Data were extracted from electronic health record (EHR) and pharmacy claims databases. Prescriptions were PMN eligible if none of the following were met: fill of any cancer medication within the previous 180-day lookback window, duplicate prescription, cancellation within 30 days, rerouting to an external pharmacy within 30 days of prescribing, filled through alternate method, or nononcology or hematology condition. PMN was calculated by dividing eligible prescriptions unfilled during the study period by all eligible prescriptions. Reasons for a lack of prescription fulfillment were assessed via EHR review. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We evaluated 4482 prescriptions from 1422 patients, resulting in 861 PMN-eligible prescriptions. Most PMN-eligible prescriptions (n = 668, 78%) were filled within 30 days, leaving 193 prescriptions as potential instances of PMN. After EHR review, 158 prescriptions met the exclusion criteria, resulting in a PMN rate of 4%. Of PMN prescriptions (n = 35), most were caused by clinical reasons (n = 22, 63%); however, 10 prescriptions were unfilled owing to patient decision, 2 owing to unaffordable treatment, and 1 owing to inability to reach the patient. Patients with PMN had a median age of 72 years and were mostly male (60%), with a median Charlson comorbidity index score of 7. CONCLUSION: Low rates of PMN to prescribed anticancer medications were found among electronic prescriptions intended to be filled at an IHSSP.

Adherence and persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improve symptoms and delay progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but adherence is often sub-optimal and many patients change medication (either "switching" to a medication with a different mechanism of action or "cycling" to a medication with the same mechanism of action) during the first year of therapy. Some integrated health-system specialty pharmacies embed pharmacists in clinics to help patients access and adhere to specialty medication. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed DMARD switching, cycling, adherence, and persistence at an outpatient rheumatology clinic with an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with RA, naïve to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs, who filled ≥ 2 biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD prescriptions within 12 months. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC); persistence was computed at 12 months. Univariate analyses compared adherence and persistence between patients with and without a medication change. Ordinal logistic regression examined whether PDC was associated with patient age, gender, race, insurance type, and medication change. RESULTS: We included 772 patients: 79% female/21% male, 89% White/11% non-White, median age 56 years (interquartile range = 48-63). Most patients (84%) did not change medication during the study period, 5% cycled medication one or more times (but did not switch), 9% switched medication one or more times (but did not cycle), and 2% of patients both switched and cycled during the study period. Median PDC of the sample was 0.94 and 73% of patients were persistent. Patients with a medication change had lower PDC than those without (0.89 vs 0.95, P = 0.004), but rate of persistence did not significantly differ between groups (77 vs 72%, P = 0.300). Odds of higher PDC was more likely for men (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.48, P < 0.001) and less likely for patients who changed medication (OR = 0.65, CI: 0.47-0.91, P = 0.011); age, race, and insurance type were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA demonstrated high medication adherence and persistence, and low rates of switching and cycling. Findings support evidence that integrated health-system specialty pharmacies with clinical pharmacists embedded in outpatient clinics help patients overcome barriers to medication adherence to persist on therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi, Inc. James and J. Choi were employed by Sanofi, Inc., at the time of this study. Peter, Zuckerman, DeClercq, L. Choi, and Tanner, received research funding from Sanofi, Inc., for work on this study. Tanner has also received advisory board/speaker bureau fees from Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus in October 2019 at National Harbor, MD.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of a health outcomes and research program at an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy.

PURPOSE: Health-system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) provide high-quality, efficient, and collaborative care to patients receiving specialty therapy. Despite proven benefits of the integrated model, manufacturer and payer restrictions challenge the viability and utility of HSSPs. Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy developed a health outcomes and research program to measure and communicate the value of this model, drive improvement in patient care delivery, and advocate for recognition of HSSP pharmacists' role in patient care. The purpose of this descriptive report is to describe the development and results of this program. SUMMARY: The health outcomes and research program began as an initiative for pharmacists to evaluate and convey the benefits they provide to patients, providers, and the health system. Early outcomes data proved useful in communicating the value of an integrated model to key stakeholders and highlighted the need to further develop research efforts. The department leadership invested resources to build a research program with dedicated personnel, engaged research experts to train pharmacists, and fostered internal and external collaborations to facilitate research efforts. As of March 2021, the health outcomes and research program team has published 33 peer-reviewed manuscripts, presented 88 posters and 7 podium presentations at national conferences, and received 4 monetary research awards. Further, the program team engages other HSSP teams to initiate and expand their own health outcomes research in an effort to empower all HSSPs in demonstrating their value. CONCLUSIONS: The health outcomes and research program described has pioneered outcomes research among HSSPs nationwide and has proven valuable to specialty pharmacists, the health system, and key specialty pharmacy stakeholders.

Comparison of provider satisfaction with specialty pharmacy services in integrated health-system and external practice models: A multisite survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to obtain insight into providers' satisfaction with services offered by health-system integrated specialty pharmacies and to determine whether providers' perceptions of services offered under an integrated model differ from perceptions of external specialty pharmacy services. METHODS: A multi-site, cross-sectional, online survey of specialty clinic healthcare providers at 10 academic health systems with integrated specialty pharmacies was conducted. The questionnaire was developed by members of the Vizient Specialty Pharmacy Outcomes and Benchmarking Workgroup and was pretested at 3 pilot sites prior to dissemination. Prescribers of specialty medications within each institution were identified and sent an email invitation to participate in the study that included a link to the anonymous questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 10 statements regarding quality of services of integrated and external specialty pharmacies on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An analysis to determine differences in providers' overall satisfaction with the integrated and external specialty pharmacy practice models, as well as differences in satisfaction scores for each of the 10 statements, was performed using paired-samples t tests. RESULTS: The mean (SD) score for overall satisfaction with integrated specialty pharmacies was significantly higher than the score for satisfaction with external specialty pharmacies: 4.72 (0.58) vs 2.97 (1.20); 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.87; P < 0.001. Provider ratings of the integrated specialty pharmacy model were also higher for all 10 items evaluating the quality of services (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The study results confirm that the health-system integrated specialty pharmacy practice model promotes high rates of provider satisfaction with services and perceived benefits.

Inclusion in limited distribution drug network reduces time to dalfampridine access in patients with multiple sclerosis at a health-system specialty pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Dalfampridine improves walking speed in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but accessing specialty medications such as dalfampridine can be hindered by insurance restrictions, high costs, and limited distribution networks (LDNs) imposed by manufacturers. Some integrated health-systems specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) embed pharmacists in clinics and dispense medications from their internal pharmacies if included within the LDN. OBJECTIVE: To assess access to dalfampridine in patients at an HSSP before and after gaining admission to the LDN. METHODS: This study was conducted at Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy (VSP), an integrated HSSP at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) with 2 clinical pharmacists embedded in the MS clinic. VSP gained access to the dalfampridine LDN on May 1, 2018, at which time the embedded pharmacists began to manage the comprehensive therapy initiation process. We performed a retrospective review of adult patients with MS who were prescribed dalfampridine from March 2010 to December 2018. Eligible prescriptions were new starts (no previous use) or restarts (after previous use and discontinuation). Prescriptions were classified as pre-VSP and post-VSP, which differentiates before and after VSP gained access to dispense dalfampridine. Study outcomes were insurance approval, initiation of therapy, and time from treatment decision to medication access. We used a proportional odds logistic regression model for time to medication access using the following covariates: pre-VSP versus post-VSP time period, insurance prior authorization (PA) denied versus approved/not needed, and baseline timed 25-foot walk. RESULTS: We included 262 patients and 290 prescriptions (260 pre-VSP and 30 post-VSP). In pre-VSP and post-VSP prescriptions, 97% were approved by insurance, and 93% of patients started therapy. Median time to medication access was 22 days (IQR = 11-45) for pre-VSP prescriptions and 1 day (IQR = 0-3) for post-VSP prescriptions. In the proportional odds logistic regression model, the odds of having a longer medication access time were significantly higher for pre-VSP prescriptions (OR = 83.219, P < 0.001) and prescriptions whose PA was initially denied (OR = 9.50, P < 0.001); 25-foot walk time was not significant (OR = 0.95, P = 0.277). CONCLUSIONS: After obtaining access to dispense dalfampridine, the time to access therapy was reduced, suggesting that LDNs delay patient access to therapy at HSSPs. DISCLOSURES: No funding was provided for this study. The authors have no conflicting interests to disclose. Preliminary results have been previously presented at the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacy Midyear Meeting in December 2019, the Vanderbilt Health Systems Specialty Pharmacy Outcomes Research Summit in August 2020, and the National Association of Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting in September 2020.

Rheumatoid arthritis medication adherence in a health system specialty pharmacy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess adherence to specialty medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) and identify characteristics associated with adherence. STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Study patients were adults with RA who filled at least 3 prescriptions for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, at an integrated HSSP. Data were collected from pharmacy claims and electronic health records. The primary outcome, adherence, was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC). Proportional odds logistic regression was used to test association between PDC and age, gender, race, insurance type, and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: We included 675 patients: 77% were female, 90% were White, 29% were naive to treatment at initial dispensing, 60% held commercial insurance, and the median age was 56 years. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient out-of-pocket cost per fill was $1.50 ($0-$5). Median (IQR) PDC was 0.95 (0.84-1.00); 80% of patients achieved PDC of 0.80 or higher. Higher adherence was more likely in patients who were male (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18; P = .005], naive to specialty medication treatment (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.21-4.18; P < .001), and older in age (per 10 years: OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.32; P = .008), and adherence had a significant nonlinear association with average cost per fill (P = .006); associations with race and insurance type were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: At an integrated HSSP, patients with RA paid low out-of-pocket costs for bDMARD therapy and achieved high treatment adherence. Data suggest that integrated HSSPs assist patients in removing financial barriers to treatment.

Pharmacist Interventions to Improve Specialty Medication Adherence: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of specialty medications in complicated clinical conditions depends on adherence to therapy. However, specialty medications pose unique barriers to adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether pharmacist interventions improve specialty medication adherence. METHODS: This is a single-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial ongoing since 10 May 2019 at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy. This study evaluates usual care compared with usual care plus patient-tailored adherence interventions. Study design and procedures were informed by focus groups with patients and specialty pharmacists. Patients at Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy with a proportion of days covered (PDC) < 90% in the previous 4 months are identified by a daily query of the electronic pharmacy database. A pharmacist reviews these patients' electronic health records to identify and exclude ineligible patients. Eligible patients are randomized evenly to the control or intervention arm and stratified by historical clinic nonadherence rates. Patients randomized to the intervention arm undergo a baseline assessment to clarify reasons for nonadherence and subsequently receive patient-tailored interventions based on their specific reasons. Interventions and follow-up are provided at the discretion of the intervening pharmacist. The primary outcome is PDC calculated at 8 months post-enrollment. Enrollment of 438 participants will provide 90% power to detect a 5% difference in PDC between the two arms within each nonadherence risk stratum. DISCUSSION: This trial will evaluate the effect of patient-tailored interventions on specialty medication adherence and will inform how often and why patients are misidentified as nonadherent. REGISTRATION: The trial was deemed a quality improvement initiative by the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board. It was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03709277) on 17 October 2018.

Pharmacist Interventions to Improve Specialty Medication Adherence: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of specialty medications in complicated clinical conditions depends on adherence to therapy. However, specialty medications pose unique barriers to adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether pharmacist interventions improve specialty medication adherence. METHODS: This is a single-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial ongoing since 10 May 2019 at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy. This study evaluates usual care compared with usual care plus patient-tailored adherence interventions. Study design and procedures were informed by focus groups with patients and specialty pharmacists. Patients at Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy with a proportion of days covered (PDC) < 90% in the previous 4 months are identified by a daily query of the electronic pharmacy database. A pharmacist reviews these patients' electronic health records to identify and exclude ineligible patients. Eligible patients are randomized evenly to the control or intervention arm and stratified by historical clinic nonadherence rates. Patients randomized to the intervention arm undergo a baseline assessment to clarify reasons for nonadherence and subsequently receive patient-tailored interventions based on their specific reasons. Interventions and follow-up are provided at the discretion of the intervening pharmacist. The primary outcome is PDC calculated at 8 months post-enrollment. Enrollment of 438 participants will provide 90% power to detect a 5% difference in PDC between the two arms within each nonadherence risk stratum. DISCUSSION: This trial will evaluate the effect of patient-tailored interventions on specialty medication adherence and will inform how often and why patients are misidentified as nonadherent. REGISTRATION: The trial was deemed a quality improvement initiative by the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board. It was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03709277) on 17 October 2018.

Risk Factors for Medication Nonadherence to Self-Injectable Biologic Therapy in Adult Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), nonadherence to biologic therapy increases risk of disease flare. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for nonadherence. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study evaluating patients with IBD treated at a tertiary care center and prescribed self-injectable biologic therapy using the center's specialty pharmacy. Adherence was defined using medication possession ratio (MPR). Nonadherence was defined as MPR <0.86. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty patients (n = 393 with CD and n = 67 with UC) were evaluated with mean MPR (interquartile range) equaling 0.89 (0.48-1). Overall, 69% of patients were adherent (defined as MPR ≥0.86), 66% of patients with CD and 87% of patients with UC. In univariate analysis, several factors increased risk of nonadherence: CD diagnosis, insurance type, psychiatric history, smoking, prior biologic use, and narcotic use (P < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-15.6) and CD diagnosis (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0) increased risk of nonadherence. In CD, as the number of risk factors increased (narcotic use, psychiatric history, prior biologic use, and smoking), the probability of nonadherence increased. Adherence was 72% in patients with 0-1 risk factors, decreasing to 62%, 61%, and 42% in patients with 2, 3, and 4 risk factors, respectively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified risk factors for nonadherence to biologic therapy. In patients with CD, the probability of nonadherence increased as the number of risk factors increased.

An Integrated Health-System Specialty Pharmacy Model for Coordinating Transitions of Care: Specialty Medication Challenges and Specialty Pharmacist Opportunities.

Adherence and persistence to specialty medications are necessary to achieve successful outcomes of costly therapies. The increasing use of specialty medications has exposed several unique barriers to certain specialty treatments' continuation. Integrated specialty pharmacy teams facilitate transitions in sites of care, between different provider types, among prescribed specialty medications, and during financial coverage changes. We review obstacles encountered within these types of transitions and the role of the specialty pharmacist in overcoming these obstacles. Case examples for each type of specialty transition provide insight into the unique complexities faced by patients, and shed light on pharmacists' vital role in patient care. This insightful and real-world experience is needed to facilitate best practices in specialty care, particularly in the growing number of health-system specialty pharmacies.

Development of quality measures for use of self-injectable biologic therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: An integrated specialty pharmacy initiative.

PURPOSE: The development of a tool to measure medication safety, therapeutic efficacy, and other quality outcomes in patients receiving self-injectable biologic therapy for the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) at a health-system specialty pharmacy is described. SUMMARY: Through a collaborative initiative by pharmacists, gastro-enterologists, and representatives of a pharmacy benefit manager and a pharmaceutical company, a set of clinical and specialty pharmacy quality measures was developed. The clinical measures are intended for use in assessing patient safety, disease status, treatment efficacy, and healthcare resource utilization during 3 assessments (pre-treatment, on-treatment, and longitudinal). The specialty pharmacy measures can be used to assess medication adherence, medication persistence, specialty pharmacy accreditation, and patient satisfaction. The proposed quality measures provide a foundation for evaluating the quality of IBD care and improving patient outcomes within a health-system specialty pharmacy. Future efforts to validate and implement the tool in clinical practice are planned. CONCLUSION: The proposed quality measures provide a foundation for future inquiry regarding the appropriateness and feasibility of integrating the measures into clinical care. Further work is needed to implement and validate these quality measures and determine their impact in optimizing health outcomes.