Analysis of the Gene Therapies Authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

BACKGROUND: Gene therapy, altering the genes inside human cells, has recently emerged as an alternative for preventing and treating disease. Concerns have been expressed about the clinical value and the high cost of gene therapies. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the characteristics of the clinical trials, authorizations, and prices of gene therapies in the United States and the European Union. RESEARCH DESIGN: We collected regulatory information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and manufacturer-listed prices from the United States, UK, and Germany. Descriptive statistics and t tests were conducted in the study. RESULTS: As of January 1, 2022, the FDA and EMA authorized 8 and 10 gene therapies, respectively. The FDA and EMA granted orphan designation to all gene therapies except talimogene laherparepvec. Pivotal clinical trials were nonrandomized, open level, uncontrolled, phase I-III, and included a limited number of patients. Study primary outcomes were mainly surrogate endpoints without demonstration of direct patient benefit. The price of gene therapies at market entry ranged from $200,064 to $2,125,000 million. CONCLUSIONS: Gene therapy is used to treat incurable diseases that affect only a small number of patients (orphan diseases). Based on this, they are approved by the EMA and FDA with insufficient clinical evidence to ensure safety and efficacy, in addition to the high cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of androgen deprivation therapy with relugolix for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Relugolix treatment of advanced prostate cancer (APC), like other gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonists, results in rapid decrease in testosterone concentrations without the risk of flare, as seen in leuprolide. Despite this benefit over leuprolide, no economic evaluation assessment to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of relugolix has been conducted. Therefore, this study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with 120 mg relugolix against 7.5 mg leuprolide for the treatment of APC. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess and compare the costs of APC treatment from a health care payer's perspective and the effectiveness of ADT with relugolix and leuprolide at the 3 lines of APC treatment among modified intent-to-treat patients. Relative progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated. Outcomes measured in the analyses included costs of the drugs and therapies, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness acceptability, and probability curves. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed the ICER for ADT with relugolix to be US $49,571.1 per QALY. At the ICER value, the sensitivity analysis indicated that ADT with leuprolide was dominant in 100% of the simulations. ADT acceptance with relugolix was 100% when a willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US $100,000/QALY. At 5-years, the relative PFS and OS rates for relugolix at the first line of therapy were 72.7% and 86.0%, respectively, compared to 61.0% and 85.90% for leuprolide. CONCLUSION: Though the influence of adverse events was not considered in the analysis, ADT with relugolix was not a cost-effective choice for APC management. While the analysis revealed a slight chance of sustaining testosterone suppression with relugolix, ADT with relugolix provided no significant survival advantages over ADT with leuprolide. Therefore, this analysis confirms no need for further assessment of APC interventions to make informed decisions beneficial to the APC patients, oncologists, and other stakeholders.

Perioperative Prescribing Practices of Extended-Release Opioids in Noncancer Surgical Patients, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release (ER) opioids are indicated for the management of persistent moderate to severe pain in patients requiring around-the-clock opioid analgesics for an extended period of time. Concerns have been raised regarding safety of ER opioids due to its potential for abuse and dependence. However, little is known about perioperative prescribing practices of ER opioids. This study assessed perioperative prescribing practices of ER opioids in noncancer surgical patients stratified by type of opioid exposure prior to admission and examined predictors of postoperative opioid administration in oral morphine equivalents (OME). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the University of California San Francisco Medical Center electronic health record data. This study included 25,396 adult noncancer patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia in the period 2015-2018. The primary study outcome was predictors of postoperative administration of opioids in hospitalized surgical patients. Secondary outcomes included patients discontinued and initiated on ER opioids during their hospital stay. RESULTS: substance use disorder diagnosis and use of opioids, surgery type, and postoperative administration of nonopioid analgesics were associated with postoperative administration of opioids (P < .0001). The estimated adjusted mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) of postoperative administration of OME prior to admission in ER opioid users (170.08 mg; 147.08-196.67) was twice the amount for opioid-naïve patients (81.36 mg; 70.7-93.63; P < .0001). One in 5 prior to admission ER opioid users were weaned off ER opioids while hospitalized without adversely affecting their postoperative pain or hospital length of stay (LOS). Four of 5 patients who used ER opioids prior to admission also received ER opioids after surgery, whereas, 1 in 100 opioid-naïve patients received ER opioids during their hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variability in the perioperative prescribing practices of ER opioids in hospitalized noncancer surgical patients by use of opioids prior to admission and surgery type. Pain medicine practitioners and surgeons may play a significant role tackling the surgery-related risk of exposure to ER opioids and decreasing opioid-related complications.

A comparison of new drugs approved by the FDA, the EMA, and Swissmedic: an assessment of the international harmonization of drugs.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the characteristics of new human drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicine Agency (EMA), and Swissmedic (SMC) in the period 2007 to 2016. METHODS: The list of new drugs and therapeutic biologics approved by the FDA, the EMA, and SMC in the period 2007 to 2016 was collected from websites of those agencies. The study included regulatory information, approval date, and indication for each drug. Descriptive statistical t tests and x2-tests were performed for the analysis. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2016, 134 new drugs were approved by all three regulatory agencies. Overall, 66.4% of the drugs were first approved by the FDA, 30.6% by the EMA, and 3.0% by SMC. The difference in approval dates between SMC and the EMA, SMC and the FDA, and the FDA and the EMA were statistically significant. The indications approved by the FDA, the EMA, and SMC for the same drugs were similar in content for 23.1% drugs and different in 76.9% of the drugs. Significant differences in indications existed between the FDA and SMC and the FDA and the EMA, but not between the EMA and SMC. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the characteristics of new drugs approved by the EMA, the FDA, and SMC in the period 2007-2016. Overall, two thirds of the new drugs were first approved by the FDA. Differences in indications were found in three out of four new drugs approved by the three regulatory agencies. Despite international drug regulation harmonization efforts, significant differences in the characteristics of new drugs approved by different agencies persist.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin+dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to metformin+sulfonylureas for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically use several drug treatments during their lifetime. There is a debate about the best second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure due to the increasing number of available antidiabetic drugs and the lack of comparative clinical trials of secondary treatment regimens. While prior research compared the cost-effectiveness of two alternative drugs, the literature assessing T2D treatment pathways is scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) compared to sulfonylureas (SU) as second-line therapy in combination with metformin in patients with T2D. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states, 1 year cycle, and a 25-year time horizon. Clinical and cost data were collected from previous studies and other readily available secondary data sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from the US third party payer perspective. Both, costs and outcomes, were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base-case results. RESULTS: The discounted incremental cost of metformin+DPP-4i compared to metformin+SU was $11,849 and the incremental life-years gained were 0.61, resulting in an ICER of $19,420 per life-year gained for patients in the metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway. The ICER estimated in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis was $19,980 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were not sensitive to changes in the parameters used in base-case. CONCLUSIONS: The metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway was cost-effective compared to metformin+SU as a long-term second-line therapy in the treatment of T2D from the US health care payer perspective. Study findings have the potential to provide clinicians and third party payers valuable evidence for the prescription and utilization of cost-effective second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure in the treatment of T2D.

Changes in the utilization of osteoporosis drugs after the 2010 FDA bisphosphonate drug safety communication.

INTRODUCTION: In October 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication regarding the risks of atypical fractures of the femur, with bisphosphonates drugs. This study evaluated the impact of the bisphosphonates FDA safety communication on the utilization of osteoporosis medications in Medicaid programs. METHODS: Osteoporosis drugs utilization data from the July 2006 to June 2014 were extracted from the national Summary Files from the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). We performed an interrupted time series analyses to evaluate trends in utilization of osteoporosis drugs before and after the 2010 FDA safety commination. RESULTS: Time-series analyses of osteoporosis drug utilization in Medicaid program revealed a significant downward trend associated with the 2010 FDA bisphosphonates safety communication. Before the FDA safety communication was issued, the utilization rate was slightly decreased between 2006 and 2010. In the year following the FDA safety communication the bisphosphonate DDDs per 1000 beneficiaries of fell 22% yearly until the end of study period. CONCLUSIONS: The 2010 FDA bisphosphonates safety communication appeared to have influenced Osteoporosis utilization in Medicaid recipients. The 2010 FDA bisphosphonates safety communication was associated with a significant reduction in the utilization of bisphosphonates in the Medicaid program.

OSTEOPOROSIS DRUGS MARKETED IN THE UNITED STATES: GENERIC COMPETITION, PRICING STRUCTURE, AND DISPERSION AMONG PAYERS.

BACKGROUND: Despite the cost of pharmaceuticals, studies assessing prices of osteoporosis drugs are lacking. This study examined trends in prices of osteoporosis drugs in the United States in the period 1988-2014, assessed pricing structure of osteoporosis drugs, and evaluated price trends before and after generic drugs market entry. METHODS: Data were derived from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the RedBook, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Descriptive statistics and segmented linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the period 1988-2014, osteoporosis drug prices increased faster than the inflation. The average wholesale price (AWP) of generic products at market entry represented 90 percent of the AWP for the corresponding brand. Prices of brand products continued to increase after generic entry. Drug prices showed a significant variation when compared with the brand AWP. The brand wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) was typically set at 83.3 percent of the AWP. Community pharmacies acquired osteoporosis brand drugs at a median of 80.5 percent of the brand AWP. Significant reductions in brand AWP were observed for Medicare Part B (78.5 percent of the brand AWP), generic National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (33.7 percent), and FSS (22.5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in the manufacturer prices, pharmacy acquisition costs and reimbursement rates of osteoporosis drugs. Pharmaceutical companies listed prices are higher than the pharmacy actual estimated acquisitions costs, and the prices used for reimbursement to providers. Generic drugs entry significantly drives down prices; still, prices of branded drugs facing generic competition continued to increase after generic market entry.

A Comparison of Drug Shortages in the Hospital Setting in the United States and Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug shortages are a problem that has been growing in recent years. This problem has an impact on patient outcomes and public health. Most countries have been affected by a diversity of drug supply chain problems. OBJECTIVE: To assess explanations for differences in drug shortages reported in the hospital setting in Saudi Arabia (SA) and the United States (US). METHODS: Data were collected in May-June 2014 from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) and from 2 Saudi hospitals: King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) and King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSHRC). Drugs were classified using the World Health Organization (WHO) Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. The drug shortages among the hospitals were compared using descriptive statistics and a chi-square test. RESULTS: The percentage of the total number of active ingredients reported in shortage was higher in the US hospital setting (15.1%) than in the Saudi hospitals (10.3%) (p < .0001). KAUH reported the highest number of shortages (n = 133), followed by BWH (n = 42) and KFSHRC (n = 27). A significantly higher percentage of shortages involved injectable drugs in the US hospital setting (78.1%) than the Saudi hospitals (34.43%) (p ≤ .0001). Nervous system (17%) and alimentary tract and metabolism agents (15.7%) were the therapeutic areas with the higher number of reported shortages in the US and SA hospital settings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The number and characteristics of shortages varied by country and hospital. Several factors, including differences in hospital characteristics, number and type of drugs available, and procurement systems, may explain differences in reported shortages.

Priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA: time for international regulatory harmonization of pharmaceuticals?

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) priority review process applies to a drug that is considered a significant improvement over the available alternatives. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) accelerated approval applies to a product that is of major public health interest. This study assessed differences in the characteristics of priority review new molecular entities and new therapeutic biologic products approved by the FDA and the EMA. METHODS: This study includes regulatory information on drug applications, approvals, indications, and orphan designations of all priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA in the period 1999-2011. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 100 FDA priority review new molecular entities and new therapeutic biologics were approved by both agencies; 87.0% of the products were first approved by the FDA. The average FDA review time (9.2 ± 8.4 months) was significantly lower than the EMA average review time (14.6 ± 4.0 months) (p < 0.0001). The FDA and the EMA granted orphan designation to 43.0% and 33.0%, respectively, of the applications. There were differences in the administration route (1.0% of all products), dosage (8.0%), strength (23%), posology (51.0%), indications (30.0%), restrictions of use (52.0%), limitations of use (19.0%), and outcomes limitations (28.0%) approved by both regulatory agencies. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist in the characteristics of the priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA. Harmonization of the US and European regulatory frameworks may facilitate timely approval of pharmaceutical products.

Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration new drug and biologic approvals, regulatory pathways, and review times, 1980-2022.

U.S. laws enacted since 1983 have aimed to enhance the development and marketing of new pharmaceutical products. We thoroughly characterized all new molecular entities, therapeutic biologics, and gene and cell therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the period 1980-2022 in the context of these laws and regulations. Throughout the study period, the FDA approved 1355 new pharmaceutical products. The median FDA review time decreased from 26.6 months prior to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (1992), which authorized the FDA to collect fees from drug companies to 9.9 months after the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (2012), which created new designations that eliminated the requirement for evidence of added therapeutic benefit for FDA expedited drug review. The greatest increase in approvals occurred in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs, biologics, and orphan drugs. More than half of new drug approvals benefited from regulatory designations and pathways that did not require addressing unmet medical needs or demonstrating therapeutic benefit over available alternatives. The legislative goal of bringing more drugs to the market faster has been achieved. Further studies are needed to determine the therapeutic value to patients of new drugs approved using expedited approval pathways.

Perceptions of metabolic syndrome management utilization in relation to patient experience and health-related quality of life.

Background: One factor for the poor health outcomes among adult people with metabolic syndrome (MetS) is poor utilization of disease management resources, which may be attributable to prior experience with pharmacists (PEwP) and perceptions of disease management resource utilization (PMU). Therefore, understanding patients' experience could be critical to improving their perceptions and promoting health outcomes. Objectives: The study explored the influence of PEwP and PMU on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of people with MetS. Methods: Data on perceptions of healthcare, medication, and pharmacy services utilization, PEwP, and HRQoL were collected using validated tools via an electronic survey. Chi-square and ordinal regression tests were used to predict the association between PMU, PEwP, and HRQoL. Also, mediation analysis through Haye's model 4 explored the direct and indirect relationship of PMU and PEwP on HRQoL. Results: A total of 706 completed surveys were collected and used for analyses. On average, respondents reported three comorbidities. Of the respondents, 72.0% had good PEwP, while 32.6% had good PMU. Comparatively, 38.4% of those with good PEwP had good PMU, compared to 17.3% of those with poor PEwP. Also, 47.0% of those with good PMU had good HRQoL compared to 35.3% with poor PMU. The odds of having fair or good PMU were nearly triple (OR = 2.97, p < 0.001) among those with good PEwP compared to those with poor PEwP. Also, respondents with good PMU had 58% (OR = 1.58, p = 0.008) higher odds of having fair or good HRQoL. Analysis through bootstrap indicated a significant relationship (BootCI = -0.072, -0.022) between PEwP and HRQoL via respondents' PMU. Conclusions: MetS individuals with good experience and PMU were more likely to have good HRQoL. Prior experience with pharmacists influenced PMU and indirectly impacted HRQoL. Therefore, pharmacists must consider patients' experience and management utilization perceptions to promote health outcome among people with MetS, while implementing interventions.

Changes in FDA enforcement activities following changes in federal administration: the case of regulatory letters released to pharmaceutical companies.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the protection of the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness and security of human drugs and biological products through the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and related regulations. These enforcement activities include regulatory letters (i.e. warning letters and notice of violation) to pharmaceutical companies. A regulatory letter represents the FDA's first official notification to a pharmaceutical company that the FDA has discovered a product or activity in violation of the FDCA.This study analyzed trends in the pharmaceutical-related regulatory letters released by the FDA during the period 1997-2011 and assessed differences in the average number and type of regulatory letters released during the last four federal administrations. METHODS: Data derived from the FDA webpage. Information about the FDA office releasing the letter, date, company, and drug-related violation was collected. Regulatory letters were classified by federal administration. Descriptive statistics were performed for the analysis. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2011 the FDA released 2,467 regulatory letters related to pharmaceuticals. FDA headquarters offices released 50.6% and district offices 49.4% of the regulatory letters. The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion released the largest number of regulatory letters (850; 34.5% of the total), followed by the Office of Scientific Investigations (131; 5.3%), and the Office of Compliance (105; 4.3%). During the 2nd Clinton Administration (1997-2000) the average number of regulatory letters per year was 242.8 ± 45.6, during the Bush Administration (2001-2008) it was 120.4 ± 33.7, and during the first three years of the Obama administration (2009-2011) it was 177.7.0 ± 17.0. The average number of regulatory letters released by the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion also varied by administration: Clinton (122.3 ± 36.4), Bush (29.5 ± 16.2) and Obama (41.7 ± 11.1). CONCLUSIONS: Most regulatory letters released by FDA headquarters were related to marketing and advertising activities of pharmaceutical companies. The number of regulatory letters was highest during the second Clinton administration, diminished during the Bush administrations, and increased again during the Obama administration. A further assessment of the impact of changes in federal administration on the enforcement activities of the FDA is required.

Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020.

Importance: Drug expenditures in the US are higher than in any other country and are projected to continue increasing, so US health systems may benefit from evaluating international regulatory and reimbursement decision-making of new drugs. Objective: To evaluate regulatory decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs) in Australia, Canada, and the UK regarding new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 through 2020, as well as to estimate the US cost per patient per year for drugs receiving negative recommendations. Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, recommendations issued by agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK were collected for new drugs approved by the FDA in 2017 through 2020. All data were current as of May 31, 2022. Exposures: Authorizations and HTAs in selected countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: All FDA-approved drugs were matched by active ingredient to decision summary reports published by drug regulators and HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Regulatory approval concordance and reasons for negative recommendations were assessed using descriptive statistics. For drugs not recommended by an international agency, the annual US drug cost per patient was estimated from FDA labeling and wholesale acquisition costs. Results: The FDA approved 206 new drugs in 2017 through 2020, of which 162 (78.6%) were granted marketing authorization by at least 1 other regulatory agency at a median (IQR) delay of 12.1 (17.7) months following US approval. Conversely, 5 FDA-approved drugs were refused marketing authorization by an international regulatory agency due to unfavorable benefit-to-risk assessments. An additional 42 FDA-approved drugs received negative reimbursement recommendations from HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, or the UK due to uncertainty of clinical benefits or unacceptably high prices. The median (IQR) US cost of the 47 drugs refused authorization or not recommended for reimbursement by an international agency was $115 281 ($166 690) per patient per year. Twenty drugs were for oncology indications, and 36 were approved by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways or the Orphan Drug Act. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study assessed reasons for which drugs recently approved by the FDA were refused marketing authorization or not recommended for public reimbursement in other countries. Drugs with limited international market presence may require close examination by US health care professionals and health systems.

A Comparative Assessment of Approvals and Discontinuations of Systemic Antibiotics and Other Therapeutic Areas.

Since 1980, the US Congress has passed legislation providing several incentives to encourage the development and regulatory approval of new drugs, particularly antibiotics. We assessed long-term trends and characteristics of approvals and discontinuations of all new molecular entities, new therapeutic biologics, and gene and cell therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as reasons for discontinuations by therapeutic class, in the context of laws and regulations implemented over the past four decades. In the period 1980-2021, the FDA approved 1310 new drugs, of which 210 (16.0%) had been discontinued as of 31 December 2021, including 38 (2.9%) withdrawn for safety reasons. The FDA approved 77 (5.9%) new systemic antibiotics, of which 32 (41.6%) had been discontinued at the end of the observation period, including 6 (7.8%) safety withdrawals. Since the enactment of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act in 2012, which created the Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation for antiinfectives to treat serious or life-threatening diseases due to resistant or potentially resistant bacteria, the FDA has approved 15 new systemic antibiotics, all using non-inferiority trials, for 22 indications and five different infections. Only one of the infections had labeled indications for patients with drug-resistant pathogens.

Disentangling the Cost of Orphan Drugs Marketed in the United States.

The increasing number and high prices of orphan drugs have triggered concern among patients, payers, and policymakers about the affordability of new drugs approved using the incentives set by the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983. This study evaluated the factors associated to the differences in the treatment cost of new orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2021. A generalized linear model (GLM) with the Gamma log-link analysis was used to ascertain the association of drug characteristics with the treatment costs of orphan and non-orphan drugs. The results of the study showed that the median and interquartile range (IQR) drug cost was USD 218,872 (IQR = USD 23,105) for orphan drugs and USD 12,798 (IQR = USD 57,940) for non-orphan drugs (p < 0.001). Higher market entry prices were associated with biologics (108%; p < 0.001), orphan status (177%; p < 0.001), US sponsor companies (48%; p = 0.035), chronic use (1083%; p < 0.001), treatment intent (163%; p = 0.004), and indications for oncology (624%; p < 0.001) or genetic disorders (624%; p < 0.001). Higher market entry treatment cost for newly approved drugs were associated with biologics, orphan status, US sponsor companies, chronic use, therapeutic intent, and indications for oncology or genetic disorders.

Comparing the cost of community pharmacy and mail-order pharmacy in a US retirement system.

Although community pharmacies have been the mainstay for drug distribution in the USA, plan members are encouraged to use mail-order pharmacies as a cost-containment strategy. Both channels differ with respect to reimbursement rates, utilization, and costs. We evaluated the differences in reimbursement rates and in ingredient costs between the two dispensing channels. We used pharmacy claims from a large Midwestern retirement system for the period 2000-2005. A representative sample of drug products was selected. We estimated the aggregated gross reimbursement, the ingredient cost, dispensing fee, pharmacy incentives for drug substitution, professional fee for other services, sales tax, and reimbursement per payer. The sample contained 1964 observations-four million claims. There were 58.5% observations for single source brands and 39.0% for generics. Observations with lower unit gross reimbursement rate in community pharmacy increased from 10.3% to 16.5%. Unit ingredient cost and dispensing fees were higher in community pharmacy than in mail-order pharmacy. Community pharmacy had a lower reimbursement rate per unit of medication (33.5-44.6% observations) compared with mail-order pharmacy. There were 87.3-98.1% observations with a higher patient co-financing per unit of medication in community pharmacy. Gross pharmaceutical reimbursement rates and unit ingredient costs were higher in community pharmacy than in mail-order pharmacy; but in more than 10% of the observations, the costs were higher in mail-order pharmacy than in community pharmacy.

Postoperative Respiratory Events in Surgical Patients Exposed to Opioid Analgesic Shortages Compared to Fully Matched Patients Non-exposed to Shortages.

INTRODUCTION: Shortages of opioid analgesics critically disrupt clinical practice and are detrimental to patient safety. There is a dearth of studies assessing the safety implications of drug shortages. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess perioperative opioid analgesic use and related postoperative hypoxemia (oxygen saturation less than 90%) in surgical patients exposed to prescription opioid shortages compared to propensity score-matched patients non-exposed to opioid shortages. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including adult patients who underwent elective surgery at The University of California San Francisco in the period August 2018-December 2019. We conducted a Gamma log-link generalized linear model to assess the effect of shortages on perioperative use of opioids and a weighted logistic regression to assess the likelihood of experiencing postoperative hypoxemia. RESULTS: There were 1119 patients exposed to opioid shortages and 2787 matched non-exposed patients. After full matching, patients exposed to shortages used a greater mean of morphine milligram equivalents/day (146.94; 95% confidence interval 123.96-174.16) than non-exposed patients (117.92; 95% confidence interval 100.48-138.38; p = 0.0001). The estimated effect was a 1.25 (95% confidence interval 1.12-1.40; p = 0.0001) times greater use of opioids in patients exposed to opioid shortages than non-exposed patients. After full matching, a greater proportion of patients exposed to shortages (19.06%) experienced hypoxemia compared with non-exposed patients (16.91%). In addition, a greater proportion of patients exposed to opioid shortages (1.20%) experienced hypoxemia reversed by intravenous naloxone administration compared with non-exposed patients (0.44%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the shortage prevalence, reliance on opioid medications, and related risk of respiratory depression, harm prevention measures remain critical to prevent postoperative complications that may compromise patients' safety.