Care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening in dually enrolled Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans dually enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and Medicare commonly experience downstream services as part of a care cascade after an initial low-value service. Our objective was to characterize the frequency and cost of low-value cervical cancer screening and subsequent care cascades among Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used VA and Medicare administrative data from fiscal years 2015 to 2019. The study cohort was comprised of female Veterans aged >65 years and at low risk of cervical cancer who were dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. Within this cohort, we compared differences in the rates and costs of cascade services related to low-value cervical cancer screening for Veterans who received and did not receive screening in FY2018, adjusting for baseline patient- and facility-level covariates using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among 20,972 cohort-eligible Veterans, 494 (2.4%) underwent low-value cervical cancer screening with 301 (60.9%) initial screens occurring in VA and 193 (39%) occurring in Medicare. Veterans who were screened experienced an additional 26.7 (95% CI, 16.4-37.0) cascade services per 100 Veterans compared to those who were not screened, contributing to $2919.4 (95% CI, -265 to 6104.7) per 100 Veterans in excess costs. Care cascades consisted predominantly of subsequent cervical cancer screening procedures and related outpatient visits with low rates of invasive procedures and occurred in both VA and Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare commonly receive related downstream tests and visits as part of care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening. Our findings demonstrate that to fully capture the extent to which individuals are subject to low-value care, it is important to examine downstream care stemming from initial low-value services across all systems from which individuals receive care.

COVID-19 pandemic and trends in clinical outcomes and medication use for patients with established atrial fibrillation: A nationwide analysis of claims data.

Study objective: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted multiple aspects of the health care system, including the diagnosis and control of chronic conditions. This study aimed to quantify pandemic-related changes in the rates of clinical events among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Design/setting/participants: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified individuals with established AF at any time before 2019 using de-identified Optum's Clinformatics® Data Mart, and followed them from 3/18/2019 to death, or disenrollment, or the end of the study (09/30/2021). Main outcome: Rates of clinical event, including all-cause hospitalization, ischemic stroke, and bleeding. We constructed interrupted time series to test changes in outcomes after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (3/11/2020, date of pandemic declaration). We then identified the first month after the start of the pandemic in which outcomes returned to pre-pandemic levels. Results: A total of 561,758 patients, with a mean age of 77 ± 9.9 years, were included in the study. The monthly incidence rate of all-cause hospitalization decreased from 2.8 % in the period immediately before the pandemic declaration to 1.7 % in the period immediately after, with p-value for level change<0.001. The rate of new ischemic stroke diagnoses decreased from 0.28 % in the period immediately before pandemic declaration to 0.20 % in the period immediately after, and the rate of major bleeding diagnoses from 0.81 % to 0.59 %, both p-values for level change<0.01. The incidence rate of ischemic stroke and bleeding events returned to pre-pandemic levels in October and November 2020, respectively. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decrease in health care visits for ischemic stroke and bleeding in a nationwide cohort of patients with established AF.

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance for Clostridioides difficile infection and gastrointestinal bleeding: an analytic framework based on case-control studies.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance pharmacovigilance is an emerging approach to identify medications with unanticipated effects. We previously developed a framework called pharmacopeia-wide association studies (PharmWAS) that limits false positive medication associations through high-dimensional confounding adjustment and set enrichment. We aimed to assess the transportability and generalizability of the PharmWAS framework by using medical claims data to reproduce known medication associations with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) or gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). METHODS: We conducted case-control studies using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database of individuals enrolled in large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States. Individuals with CDI (from 2010 to 2015) or GIB (from 2010 to 2021) were matched to controls by age and sex. We identified all medications utilized prior to diagnosis and analysed the association of each with CDI or GIB using conditional logistic regression adjusted for risk factors for the outcome and a high-dimensional propensity score. FINDINGS: For the CDI study, we identified 55,137 cases, 220,543 controls, and 290 medications to analyse. Antibiotics with Gram-negative spectrum, including ciprofloxacin (aOR 2.83), ceftriaxone (aOR 2.65), and levofloxacin (aOR 1.60), were strongly associated. For the GIB study, we identified 450,315 cases, 1,801,260 controls, and 354 medications to analyse. Antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including ticagrelor (aOR 2.81), naproxen (aOR 1.87), and rivaroxaban (aOR 1.31), were strongly associated. INTERPRETATION: These studies demonstrate the generalizability and transportability of the PharmWAS pharmacovigilance framework. With additional validation, PharmWAS could complement traditional passive surveillance systems to identify medications that unexpectedly provoke or prevent high-impact conditions. FUNDING: U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Drug Shortages Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Drug shortages are a chronic and worsening issue that compromises patient safety. Despite the destabilizing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmaceutical production, it remains unclear whether issues affecting the drug supply chain were more likely to result in meaningful shortages during the pandemic. Objective: To estimate the proportion of supply chain issue reports associated with drug shortages overall and with the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database, comprising more than 85% of drug purchases by US pharmacies from wholesalers and manufacturers, from 2017 to 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Exposure: Presence of a supply chain issue report to the US Food and Drug Administration or the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (ASHP). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was drug shortage, defined as at least 33% decrease in units purchased within 6 months of a supply chain issue report. Random-effects logistic regression models compared the marginal odds of shortages for drugs with vs without reports. Interaction terms assessed heterogeneity prior to vs during the COVID-19 pandemic and by drug characteristics (formulation, age, essential medicine status, clinician- vs self-administered, sales volume, and number of manufacturers). Results: A total of 571 drugs exposed to 731 supply chain issue reports were matched to 7296 comparison medications with no reports. After adjusting for drug characteristics, 13.7% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.8%) of supply chain issue reports were associated with subsequent drug shortages vs 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6%-4.8%) of comparators (marginal odds ratio [mOR], 3.7 [95% CI, 2.6-5.1]). Shortages increased among both drugs with and without reports in February to April 2020 (34.2% of drugs with supply chain issue reports and 9.5% of comparison drugs; mOR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.1-11.6]), and then decreased after May 2020 (9.8% of drugs with reports and 3.6% of comparison drugs; mOR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.6-5.3]). Significant associations were identified by formulation (parenteral mOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.2] vs oral mOR, 5.4 [95% CI, 3.3-8.8]; P for interaction = .008), WHO essential medicine status (essential mOR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-5.2] vs nonessential mOR, 4.6 [95% CI, 3.2-6.7]; P = .02), and for brand-name vs generic status (brand-name mOR, 8.1 [95% CI, 4.0-16.0] vs generic mOR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.7-3.6]; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this national cross-sectional study, supply chain issues associated with drug shortages increased at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ongoing policy work is needed to protect US drug supplies from future shocks and to prioritize clinically valuable drugs at greatest shortage risk.

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Early Mortality After the First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy persists alongside concerns about the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. We aimed to examine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on risk of death among US veterans. METHODS: We conducted a target trial emulation to estimate and compare risk of death up to 60 days under two COVID-19 vaccination strategies: vaccination within 7 days of enrollment versus no vaccination through follow-up. The study cohort included individuals aged ≥18 years enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration system and eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination according to guideline recommendations from 1 March 2021 through 1 July 2021. The outcomes of interest included deaths from any cause and excluding a COVID-19 diagnosis. Observations were cloned to both treatment strategies, censored, and weighted to estimate per-protocol effects. RESULTS: We included 3 158 507 veterans. Under the vaccination strategy, 364 993 received vaccine within 7 days. At 60 days, there were 156 deaths per 100 000 veterans under the vaccination strategy versus 185 deaths under the no vaccination strategy, corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -25.9 (95% confidence limit [CL], -59.5 to 2.7) and relative risk of 0.86 (95% CL, .7 to 1.0). When those with a COVID-19 infection in the first 60 days were censored, the absolute risk difference was -20.6 (95% CL, -53.4 to 16.0) with a relative risk of 0.88 (95% CL, .7 to 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower but not statistically significantly different risk of death in the first 60 days. These results agree with prior scientific knowledge suggesting vaccination is safe with the potential for substantial health benefits.

Trends in Phenylephrine and Pseudoephedrine Sales in the US.

This study examines purchasing patterns regarding oral decongestants, concerns about their efficacy, and the need for timelier postmarket evaluation.

Facility-Level Variation in Racial Disparities in Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation: The REACH-AF Study.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation reduces stroke risk for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Prior research demonstrates lower anticoagulant prescribing in Black than in White individuals but few studies have examined racial differences in facility-level anticoagulant prescribing for AF. OBJECTIVE: To assess variation in anticoagulant initiation by race within Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Black and White patients enrolled in the VA with incident AF from 2020 through 2021. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was rate of any anticoagulant initiation (i.e., warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC]) or any DOAC therapy within 90 days of an AF diagnosis, overall and for Black and White patients at each facility. We also estimated the adjusted Black-White risk difference. KEY RESULTS: In 82 VA facilities serving 26,832 Black and White patients, overall unadjusted rates of any anticoagulant therapy ranged from 56.8 to 87.1% across facilities; the corresponding ranges for Black and White patients were 47.6 to 91.3% and 58.2 to 87.1%, respectively. Overall unadjusted rates of DOAC therapy ranged from 55.1 to 85.5% by facility; ranges for Black and White patients were 42.8 to 86.9% and 56.4 to 85.5%, respectively. The adjusted risk difference between Black and White patients ranged from - 29.9 (95% CI, - 54.9 to - 4.8) to 14.2 (95% CI, - 9.1 to 25.0) across facilities for any anticoagulant therapy and from - 28.8 (95% CI, - 58.3 to 0.8) to 15.0 (95% CI, - 8.0 to 38.1) for DOAC therapy. For any anticoagulant therapy there were 3 facilities where prescribing was statistically higher in White than Black patients; for DOAC therapy there were 5 such facilities. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of patients with AF, we observed large facility-level variation and adjusted risk differences in any anticoagulant and DOAC initiation, overall and by race. These findings represent a target for local quality improvement in AF care.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of the 2018 Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Recalls and Subsequent Drug Shortages in Patients With Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall. CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.

COVID-19 pandemic and initiation of treatment for atrial fibrillation: a nationwide analysis of claims data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted the delivery of medical care. It remains unclear whether individuals diagnosed with new onset disease during the pandemic were less likely to initiate treatments after diagnosis. We sought to evaluate changes in the treatment initiation of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified individuals with incident AF from 01/01/2016-09/30/2021 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. The primary outcome was initiation of oral anticoagulation (OAC) within 30 days of AF diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included initiation of OAC within 180 days of diagnosis, initiation of warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), rhythm control medications and electrical cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis. We constructed interrupted time series analyses to examine changes in the outcomes following the onset of the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 573,524 patients (age 73.0 ± 10.9 years) were included in the study. There were no significant changes in the initiation of OAC, DOAC, and rhythm control medications associated with the onset of the pandemic. There was a significant decrease in initiation of electrical cardioversion associated with the onset of the pandemic. The rate of electronic cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis decreased by 4.9% per 1,000 patients after the onset of the pandemic and decreased by about 35% in April 2020, compared to April 2019, from 5.53% to 3.58%. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the OAC initiation within 30 days of AF diagnosis but was associated with a decline in the provision of procedures for patients newly diagnosed with AF.

Medications for opioid use disorder in rural primary care practices: Patient and provider experiences.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid epidemic has exacted a significant toll in rural areas, yet adoption of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) lags. The Rural Access to Medication Assisted Treatment in Pennsylvania (RAMP) Project facilitated adoption of MOUD in rural primary care clinics. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators operating at multiple levels to access or provide MOUD in rural Pennsylvania. METHODS: In total, the study conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with MOUD patients and MOUD providers participating in RAMP. Qualitative analysis incorporated both deductive and inductive approaches. The study team coded interviews and performed thematic analysis. Using a modified social-ecological framework, themes from the qualitative interviews are organized in five nested levels: individual, interpersonal, health care setting, community, and public policy. RESULTS: Patients and providers agreed on many barriers (e.g., lack of providers, lack of transportation, insufficient rapport and trust in patient-provider relationship, and cost, etc.); however, their interpretation of the barrier, or indicated solution, diverged in meaningful ways. Patients described their experiences in broad terms pointing to the social determinants of health, as they highlighted their lives outside of the therapeutic encounter in the clinic. Providers focused on their professional roles, responsibilities, and operations within the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: Providers may want to discuss barriers to treatment related to social determinants of health with patients, and pursue partnerships with organizations that seek to address those barriers. The findings from these interviews point to potential opportunities to enhance patient experience, increase access to and optimize processes for MOUD in rural areas, and reduce stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the wider community.

Disparities in Guideline-Recommended Statin Use for Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender : A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Analysis of Adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although statins are a class I recommendation for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and its complications, their use is suboptimal. Differential underuse may mediate disparities in cardiovascular health for systematically marginalized persons. OBJECTIVE: To estimate disparities in statin use by race-ethnicity-gender and to determine whether these potential disparities are explained by medical appropriateness of therapy and structural factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2015 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Persons eligible for statin therapy based on 2013 and 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood cholesterol guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was race-ethnicity-gender. The outcome of interest was use of a statin. Using the Institute of Medicine framework for examining unequal treatment, we calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to estimate disparities in statin use adjusted for age, disease severity, access to health care, and socioeconomic status relative to non-Hispanic White men. RESULTS: For primary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors among non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88]) and non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.74 [CI, 0.53 to 0.95]). For secondary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors for non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.81 [CI, 0.64 to 0.97]), other/multiracial men (aPR, 0.58 [CI, 0.20 to 0.97]), Mexican American women (aPR, 0.36 [CI, 0.10 to 0.61]), non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.82), non-Hispanic White women (aPR, 0.69 [CI, 0.56 to 0.83]), and non-Hispanic Black women (aPR, 0.75 [CI, 0.57 to 0.92]). LIMITATION: Cross-sectional data; lack of geographic, language, or statin-dose data. CONCLUSION: Statin use disparities for several race-ethnicity-gender groups are not explained by measurable differences in medical appropriateness of therapy, access to health care, and socioeconomic status. These residual disparities may be partially mediated by unobserved processes that contribute to health inequity, including bias, stereotyping, and mistrust. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Evaluation of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Treatment Intensification With an SGLT2 Inhibitor or GLP-1 RA in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease.

Importance: The latest guidelines continue to recommend sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite this, overall use of these 2 drug classes has been suboptimal. Objective: To assess the association of high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and the initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA among adults with T2D and established CVD who are treated with metformin-treated. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used 2017 to 2021 data from the Optum deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Each individual in the cohort was categorized into quartiles of OOP costs for a 1-month supply of SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA based on their health plan assignment. Data were analyzed from April 2021 to October 2022. Exposures: OOP cost for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was treatment intensification, defined as a new dispensing (ie, initiation) of either an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA, among patients with T2D previously treated with metformin monotherapy. For each drug class separately, Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for demographic, clinical, plan, clinician, and laboratory characteristics to estimate the hazard ratios of treatment intensification comparing the highest vs the lowest quartile of OOP costs. Results: Our cohort included 80 807 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [9.5] years, 45 129 [55.8%] male; 71 128 [88%] were insured with Medicare Advantage) with T2D and established CVD on metformin monotherapy. Patients were followed for a median (IQR) of 1080 days (528 to 1337). The mean (SD) of OOP costs in the highest vs lowest quartile was $118 [32] vs $25 [12] for GLP-1 RA, and $91 [25] vs $23 [9] for SGLT2 inhibitors. Compared with patients in plans with the lowest quartile (Q1) of OOP costs, patients in plans with the highest quartile (Q4) of costs were less likely to initiate a GLP-1 RA (adjusted HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97]) or an SGLT2 inhibitor (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73 to 0.88]). The median (IQR) number of days to initiating a GLP-1 RA was 481 (207-820) days in Q1 and 556 (237-917) days in Q4 of OOP costs and 520 (193-876) days in Q1 vs 685 (309-1017) days in Q4 for SGLT2 inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of more than 80 000 older adults with T2D and established CVD covered by Medicare Advantage and commercial plans, those in the highest quartile of OOP cost were 13% and 20% less likely to initiate a GLP-1 RA or SGLT2 inhibitor, respectively, when compared with those in the lowest quartile of OOP costs.

Assessment of Commercial and Mandatory Discounts in the Gross-to-Net Bubble for the Top Insulin Products From 2012 to 2019.

Importance: Insulin list prices have grown substantially since 2010, but net prices have declined since 2015 because of manufacturer discounts, leading to an increasingly large difference between list and net prices of drugs often called the gross-to-net bubble. It remains unclear to what extent the gross-to-net bubble represents voluntary manufacturer discounts negotiated in commercial and Medicare Part D markets (hereafter called commercial discounts) vs mandatory discounts under the Medicare Part D coverage gap, Medicaid, and the 340B program. Objective: To decompose the overall gross-to-net bubble of leading insulin products into discount types. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation obtained data from Medicare and Medicaid claims and spending dashboards, Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, and SSR Health for the top 4 commonly used insulin products: Lantus, Levemir, Humalog, and Novolog. The gross-to-net bubble, which represents total discounts, was estimated for each insulin product and year (from 2012 to 2019). Analyses were conducted in June to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The gross-to-net bubble was decomposed into 4 discount types: (1) Medicare Part D coverage gap discounts, (2) Medicaid discounts, (3) 340B discounts, and (4) commercial discounts. Coverage gap discounts were estimated using Medicare Part D claims data. Medicaid and 340B discounts were estimated using a novel algorithm that accounted for best prices set by commercial discounts. Results: Total discounts for the 4 insulin products increased from $4.9 billion to $22.0 billion. Commercial discounts represented a majority of all discounts, increasing from 71.7% of the gross-to-net bubble in 2012 ($3.5 billion) to 74.3% ($16.4 billion) in 2019. Among mandatory discounts, coverage gap discounts remained relatively consistent as a proportion of discounts (5.4% in 2012 vs 5.3% in 2019). Medicaid rebates decreased as a proportion of total discounts, from 19.7% in 2012 to 10.6% in 2019. The 340B discounts increased as a proportion of total discounts from 3.3% in 2012 to 9.8% in 2019. Results for the contribution of discount types to the gross-to-net bubble were consistent across insulin products. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of a decomposition of the gross-to-net bubble for leading insulin products suggest that commercial discounts play a growing role in lowering net sales compared with mandatory discounts.

Estimated Changes in Insulin Prices and Discounts After Entry of New Insulin Products, 2012-2019.

Importance: Despite the political salience of insulin prices, no study to date has quantified trends in insulin prices that account for manufacturer discounts (net prices). Objective: To describe trends in insulin list prices and net prices faced by payers from 2012 to 2019 and estimate changes in net prices after the 2015 to 2017 entry of new insulin products. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal study included an analysis of Medicare, Medicaid, and SSR Health drug pricing data from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Data analyses were performed from June 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. Exposures: US sales of insulin products. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net prices faced by payers were estimated for insulin products as list prices minus manufacturer discounts negotiated in commercial and Medicare Part D markets (ie, commercial discounts). Trends in net prices were evaluated before and after the entry of new insulin products. Results: Net prices of long-acting insulin products increased at an annual rate of 23.6% from 2012 to 2014 but decreased at an annual rate of 8.3% after the introduction of insulin glargine (Toujeo and Basaglar) and degludec (Tresiba) in 2015. Net prices of short-acting insulin increased at an annual rate of 5.6% from 2012 to 2017 but then decreased from 2018 to 2019 after the introduction of insulin aspart (Fiasp) and lispro (Admelog). For human insulin products, which did not experience entry of new products, net prices increased at an annual rate of 9.2% from 2012 to 2019. From 2012 to 2019, commercial discounts increased from 22.7% to 64.8% for long-acting insulin products, from 37.9% to 66.1% for short-acting insulin products, and from 54.9% to 63.1% for human insulin products. Conclusions and Relevance: In this longitudinal study of US insulin products, results suggest that insulin prices substantially increased from 2012 to 2015, even after accounting for discounts. The introduction of new insulin products was followed by substantial discounting practices that lowered net prices faced by payers.

Development and validation of an overdose risk prediction tool using prescription drug monitoring program data.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a machine-learning algorithm to predict fatal overdose using Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. METHODS: The training/testing (n = 3020,748) and validation (n = 2237,701) cohorts included Pennsylvania residents with a prescription dispensing from February 2018-September 2021. Potential predictors (n = 222) were measured in the 6 months prior to a random index date. Using a gradient boosting machine, we developed a 20-variable model to predict risk of fatal drug overdose in the 6 months after the index date. RESULTS: Beneficiaries in the training (n = 1,812,448), testing (n = 1,208,300), and validation (n = 2,237,701) samples had similar age, with low rates of fatal overdose during 6-month follow up (0.12%, 0.12%, 0.04%, respectively). The validation c-statistic was 0.86 for predicting fatal overdose using 20 PDMP variables. When ranking individuals based on risk score, the prediction model more accurately identified fatal overdose at 6 months compared to using opioid dosage or opioid/benzodiazepine overlap, although the percentage of individuals in the highest risk percentile who died at 6 months was less than 1%. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A gradient boosting machine algorithm predicting fatal overdose derived from twenty variables performed well in discriminating risk across testing and validation samples, improving on single factor risk measures like opioid dosage.

COVID-19 pandemic and trends in new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation: A nationwide analysis of claims data.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a five-fold increased risk of stroke and a two-fold increased risk of death. We aimed to quantify changes in new diagnoses of AF following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Investigating changes in new diagnoses of AF is of relevance because delayed diagnosis interferes with timely treatment to prevent stroke, heart failure, and death. METHODS: Using De-identified Optum's Clinformatics® Data Mart, we identified 19,500,401 beneficiaries continuously enrolled for 12 months in 2016-Q3 2020 with no history of AF. The primary outcome was new AF diagnoses per 30-day interval. Secondary outcomes included AF diagnosis in the inpatient setting, AF diagnosis in the outpatient setting, and ischemic stroke as initial manifestation of AF. We constructed seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to quantify changes in new AF diagnoses after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (3/11/2020, date of pandemic declaration). We tested whether changes in the new AF diagnoses differed by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The average age of study participants was 51.0±18.5 years, and 52% of the sample was female. During the study period, 2.7% of the study sample had newly-diagnosed AF. New AF diagnoses decreased by 35% (95% CI, 21%-48%) after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, from 1.14 per 1000 individuals (95% CI, 1.05-1.24) to 0.74 per 1000 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83, p-value<0.001). New AF diagnoses decreased by 37% (95% CI, 13%- 55%) in the outpatient setting and by 29% (95% CI, 14%-43%) in the inpatient setting. The decrease in new AF diagnoses was similar across racial and ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSION: In a nationwide cohort of 19.5 million individuals, new diagnoses of AF decreased substantially following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings evidence pandemic disruptions in access to care for AF, which are concerning because delayed diagnosis interferes with timely treatment to prevent complications.

Trends in dispensed prescriptions for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, and stimulants to children by general dentists, 2012-2019.

PURPOSE: Opioids, benzodiazepines and sedatives can manage dental pain, fear and anxiety but have a narrow margin of safety in children. General dentists may inappropriately prescribe gabapentin and stimulants. National evidence on dispensing rates of these high-alert medicines by dentists to children is limited. METHODS: We utilize join-point regression to identify changes in fills for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, and stimulants to children <18 years from 2012 to 2019 in a national dataset comprising 92% of dispensed outpatient prescriptions by dentists. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2019, 3.8 million children filled prescriptions for high-alert drugs from general dentists. National quarterly dispensing of high-alert drugs decreased 63.1%, from 10456.0 to 3858.8 days per million. Opioids accounted for 69.4% of high-alert prescriptions. From 2012 to 2019, fills for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, and stimulants decreased by 65.2% (7651.8 to 2662.7), 43.4% (810.9 to 458.7), 43.6% (785.7 to 442.7) and 89.3% (825.6 to 88.6 days per million), respectively. Gabapentin increased 8.1% (121.8 to 131.7 days per million). A significant decrease in high-alert fills occurred in 2016, (-6.0% per quarter vs. -1.6% pre-2016, P-value<0.001), especially for opioids (-7.0% vs. -1.2%, P-value<0.001). Older teenagers (15-17 years) received 42.5% of high-alert prescriptions. Low-income counties in the South were overrepresented among top-prescribing areas in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: We found promising national decreases in fills for high-alert medicines to children by general dentists from 2012 to 2019. However, older teenagers and children in some counties continued to receive dental opioids at high rates. Future efforts should address non-evidence-based pain management in these groups.

Association of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Anticoagulation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in the Veterans Health Administration: the REACH-AF Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia, the management of which includes anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Although disparities in anticoagulant prescribing have been well documented for individual socioeconomic factors, less is known about the association of neighborhood-level disadvantage and anticoagulation for AF. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between neighborhood disadvantage and anticoagulant initiation for patients with incident AF. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of patients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) with incident AF from January 2014 through December 2020 from the Race, Ethnicity, and Anticoagulant CHoice in Atrial Fibrillation (REACH-AF) Study. MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was neighborhood disadvantage quantified using area deprivation index (ADI), classified by quintiles (Q). The outcomes were initiation of any anticoagulant therapy (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant, DOAC) within 90 days of AF diagnosis and DOAC use among initiators. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the association between ADI and anticoagulant therapy, incorporating a fixed effect for treatment site and baseline patient, provider, and facility covariates. KEY RESULTS: Among 161,089 patients, 105,489 (65.5%) initiated any anticoagulant therapy, and 78,903 (74.8%) used DOACs. Any anticoagulant therapy increased 3.2 percentage points (63.0% to 66.2%; p<.001) from Q1 to Q5, whereas DOAC use decreased 8.2 percentage points (79.4% to 71.2%; p<.0001) across quintiles. The adjusted odd ratios of any anticoagulant therapy were non-significantly different for Q2-Q5 than Q1. The adjusted odds of DOAC use decreased progressively from 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) in Q2 to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.83) in Q5 compared to Q1 (p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among Veterans with incident AF, we observed similar initiation of any anticoagulant, though neighborhood deprivation was associated with decreased DOAC use among anticoagulant initiators. Future interventions to improve pharmacoequity in anticoagulant prescribing for AF should consider the role of neighborhood-level determinants of health inequities.