National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2024.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2024 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2024 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2024 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2023, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 13.6% compared to 2022, for a total of $722.5 billion. Utilization (a 6.5% increase), new drugs (a 4.2% increase) and price (a 2.9% increase) drove this increase. Semaglutide was the top drug in 2023, followed by adalimumab and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.1 billion (a 1.1% decrease) and $135.7 billion (a 15.0% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, increased utilization drove growth, with a small impact from price and new products. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led the decrease in expenditures, with price and new drugs modestly contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2024. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2024, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 10.0% to 12.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate an 11.0% to 13.0% increase and a 0% to 2.0% increase, respectively, compared to 2023. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2023.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2023 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2023 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, diabetes medications, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2023 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2022, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 9.4% compared to 2021, for a total of $633.5 billion. Utilization (a 5.9% increase), price (a 1.7% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top-selling drug in 2022, followed by semaglutide and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.2 billion (a 5.9% decrease) and $116.9 billion (a 10.4% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with a small impact from price changes. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led to a decrease in expenditures, with price changes and new drugs contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending have been or are expected to be approved in 2023. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2023, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 6.0% to 8.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 8.0% to 10.0% and 1.0% to 3.0%, respectively, compared to 2022. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2022 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2022 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2022 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2021, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 7.7% compared to 2020, for a total of $576.9 billion. Utilization (a 4.8% increase), price (a 1.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.1% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top drug in terms of overall expenditures in 2021, followed by apixaban and dulaglutide. Drug expenditures were $39.6 billion (a 8.4% increase) and $105.0 billion (a 7.7% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and in clinics, respectively. In clinics and hospitals, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with decreasing prices for both sectors acting as an expense restraint. Several new drugs that are likely to influence spending are expected to be approved in 2022. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2022, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7.0% to 9.0% and 3.0% to 5.0%, respectively, compared to 2021. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Implementing and Optimizing Biosimilar Use at Mayo Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the formation of a multidisciplinary team, pharmacist-led therapeutic interchange, and streamlined electronic health record optimization improved biosimilar adoption throughout Mayo Clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The project focused on the use of reference products and biosimilars for 5 biologics-bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab-at all Mayo Clinic locations. Pharmaceutical wholesale purchase histories of those reference products and biosimilars were assessed from September 1, 2020, through August 31, 2021, and compared with data from September 1, 2019, through August 31, 2020. Formulary decisions were implemented across 5 biologics for most ordering pathways on September 1, 2020. Pharmaceutical purchased drug units and expenditures were tracked at 3-month intervals for conversion to formulary-preferred contracted biosimilars. RESULTS: In the final postimplementation period, the absolute percentage increase of formulary-preferred biosimilars was 69% for bevacizumab, 63% for epoetin alfa, 80% for filgrastim, 79% for rituximab, and 72% for trastuzumab. Pharmaceutical line item savings in the 12-month postimplementation period totaled $23.1 million across all 5 biologics. CONCLUSION: Creation of a multidisciplinary team to implement formulary-preferred contracted biosimilars led to the adoption of biosimilars throughout Mayo Clinic with considerable pharmaceutical line item savings.

Expanding the Role of the Pharmacist: Immunoglobulin Therapy and Disease Management in Neuromuscular Disorders.

Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is a commonly used treatment for chronic neuromuscular disorders (NMDs), such as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and multifocal motor neuropathy. IgG therapy has also shown promise in treating other NMDs including myasthenia gravis, polymyositis, and dermatomyositis. IgG is administered as either intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg), with SCIg use becoming more popular due to the treatment burden associated with IVIg. IVIg requires regular venous access; long infusions (typically 4-6 hours); and can result in systemic adverse events (AEs) for some patients. In contrast, SCIg can be self-administered at home with shorter infusions (approximately 1 hour) and fewer systemic AEs. As patient care shifts toward home-based settings, the role of the pharmacist is paramount in providing a continuation of care and acting as the bridge between patient and clinic. Pharmacists with a good understanding of current recommendations, dosing strategies, and administration routes for IgG therapy are best placed to support patients. The aims of this review are to highlight the evidence supporting IgG therapy in the treatment of NMDs and provide practical information on patient management and IVIg/SCIg dosing in order to guide pharmacists on optimizing clinical outcomes and patient care.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2021.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2021 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2021 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2021 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2020, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States grew 4.9% compared to 2019, for a total of $535.3 billion. Utilization (a 2.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase, with price changes having minimal influence (a 0.3% increase). Adalimumab was the top drug in 2020, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $35.3 billion (a 4.6% decrease) and $98.4 billion (an 8.1% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals the decrease in expenditures was driven by reduced utilization. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2021. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2021, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4% to 6%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7% to 9% and 3% to 5%, respectively, compared to 2020. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Optimizing the correct timing of vancomycin level collection utilizing a vancomycin medication administration record (MAR) level order.

OBJECTIVE: Vancomycin, a commonly used antimicrobial, has a narrow therapeutic index; therefore, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) is required. Although the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) may improve patient care, without appropriate optimization, it can contribute to incorrectly drawn vancomycin levels. For medication administration, nurses utilize the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for medication administration documentation and medication workflow guidance. Therefore, we hypothesized creating a MAR level order which would be incorporated into this already established medication workflow may improve the rate of correctly drawn vancomycin levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, pre-and post-intervention study which evaluated the effect of a Medication Administration Record (MAR) level order within the EMR on the correct timing of vancomycin level collection. Vancomycin levels were classified into pre-and post-intervention groups. The primary endpoint was the rate of incorrectly drawn levels, defined as a level being drawn early, a level being drawn late, a level drawn while infusing, or a missed level. RESULTS: A total of 1353 vancomycin levels were assessed, and 628 levels met inclusion criteria. Of the levels eligible for inclusion, 331 were in the pre-intervention period and 297 were in the post-intervention period. Levels in the post-intervention group utilizing the vancomycin MAR level order were less likely to be missed or drawn at an incorrect time (11.1 % vs 36 %, P < 0.01) and were less likely to require rescheduling (3.4 % vs 8.5 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Utilization of a vancomycin MAR level order was associated with a significant decrease in incorrectly drawn vancomycin levels.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2020.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2020 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2020 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for specialty drugs, biosimilars, and diabetes medications. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2020 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2019, overall US pharmaceutical expenditures grew 5.4% compared to 2018, for a total of $507.9 billion. This increase was driven to similar degrees by prices, utilization, and new drugs. Adalimumab was the top drug in US expenditures in 2019, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $36.9 billion (a 1.5% increase from 2018) and $90.3 billion (an 11.8% increase from 2018) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals growth was driven by new products and price increases. Several new drugs that will likely influence spending are expected to be approved in 2020. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2020 we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 9.0% to 11.0% and 2.0% to 4.0%, respectively, compared to 2019. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2019.

PURPOSE: Historical trends and factors likely to influence future pharmaceutical expenditures are discussed, and projections are made for drug spending in 2019 in nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors). METHODS: Drug expenditure data through calendar year 2018 were obtained from the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database and analyzed. New drug approvals, patent expirations, and other factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2019 were also reviewed. Expenditure projections for 2019 for nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors) were made through a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: U.S. prescription sales in calendar year 2018 totaled $476.2 billion, a 5.5% increase from 2017 spending. The top 3 drugs by expenditures were adalimumab ($19.1 billion), insulin glargine ($9.3 billion), and etanercept ($8.0 billion). Prescription expenditures in nonfederal hospitals totaled $35.8 billion, a 4.8% increase from 2017. Expenditures in clinics in 2018 increased by 13.0% to $80.5 billion. The increase in spending in nonfederal hospitals was largely driven by new products and increased utilization of existing products. The list of the top 25 drugs by expenditures in nonfederal hospitals and clinics was dominated by specialty drugs. CONCLUSION: We predict continued moderate growth of 4-6% in overall drug expenditures (across the entire U.S. market). We expect the clinic sector to continue to experience high (11-13%) growth in drug spending in 2019. Finally, for nonfederal hospitals we anticipate growth in the range of 3-5%. These estimates are at the national level. Health-system pharmacy leaders should carefully examine local drug utilization patterns to determine their own organization's anticipated spending in 2019.

Review and drug therapy implications of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

PURPOSE: The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and medication-use implications of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, the most common enzyme deficiency in humans, are reviewed. SUMMARY: Originally identified as favism in patients who experienced hemolysis after ingestion of fava beans, G6PD deficiency results from an X-linked chromosomal mutation that leads to reduced activity of the enzyme responsible for the final step of the pentose phosphate pathway, through which reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate required for protection of cells from oxidative stress is produced. G6PD deficiency affects about 400 million people worldwide. Diagnosis of G6PD can be made through detection of enzymatic activity (by spectrophotometric testing, fluorescence testing, or formazan-based spot testing) or molecular analysis to detect known mutations of the gene encoding G6PD. Most individuals with G6PD deficiency are asymptomatic throughout life. Symptoms of acute hemolysis associated with G6PD deficiency include anemia, fatigue, back or abdominal pain, jaundice, and hemoglobinuria. The most common precipitators of oxidative stress and hemolysis in G6PD deficiency include medication use and infection. CONCLUSION: G6PD deficiency should be considered in patients who experience acute hemolysis after exposure to known oxidative medications, infection, or ingestion of fava beans. A diagnosis of G6PD deficiency is most often made through enzymatic activity detection, but molecular analysis may be required in females heterozygous for the disorder. When clinically feasible, rasburicase, primaquine, dapsone, pegloticase, and methylene blue should not be used until a G6PD diagnostic test has been performed.

A Comparison of Histamine Receptor Antagonists Versus Proton Pump Inhibitor Gastrointestinal Ulcer Prophylaxis in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

INTRODUCTION: There are several different agents that can be used for gastrointestinal (GI) ulcer prophylaxis in posttransplant recipients, such as histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). RESEARCH QUESTION: This study was conducted to compare the incidence of adverse kidney events in transplant recipients who received prophylaxis with H2RAs or PPIs. DESIGN: This retrospective study included all kidney transplant recipients from 3 transplant centers who were transplanted in 2009 through 2011. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of adverse events posttransplant, defined as the incidence of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile, hip fractures, GI bleeding, cytomegalovirus, organ rejection, and bacteremia. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients were included in the study; of which 35 were included in the PPI group and 176 were included in the H2RA group. There were no significant differences between groups in regard to incidence of GI bleeding events or other adverse events. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest there is a low incidence of GI ulcers and upper GI bleeding events after kidney transplantation with the use of H2RAs or PPIs. Additionally, there are similar rates of adverse events when comparing H2RAs versus PPIs for GI ulcer prophylaxis.

Multicenter evaluation of efficacy and safety of low-dose versus high-dose valganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in donor and recipient positive (D+/R+) renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The cytomegalovirus (CMV) donor-positive/recipient-positive (D+/R+) population is the largest proportion of renal transplant recipients (RTR). Guidelines for prevention of CMV in the intermediate-risk D+/R+ population include prophylaxis with valganciclovir (VGCV) 900 mg/day for 3 months. This study is the first head-to-head analysis, to our knowledge, comparing the efficacy and safety CMV prophylaxis of VGCV 450 vs 900 mg/day for 3 months in D+/R+ RTR. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis evaluated 478 adult RTR between January 2008 and October 2011. Study participants received VGCV 450 mg/day (Group 1; n=398) or 900 mg/day (Group 2; n=89)×3 months for CMV prophylaxis. All VGCV was adjusted for renal function. All groups included in this study received study-approved induction and maintenance immunosuppression regimens. The primary endpoint was incidence of CMV disease at 12 months. RESULTS: The rates of graft loss, patient survival, T-cell and/or antibody-mediated rejection, hematological adverse events, opportunistic infections, and early VGCV discontinuation were evaluated. Patient demographics were comparable, but had significant differences in ethnicity and donor type between the groups. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of CMV disease at 12 months was similar between the groups (3.5% vs 3.4%; P=1.000). Log-rank test found no statistically significant difference in the time to development of CMV between the 2 groups (P=.939).

Implementation of a pharmacist career ladder program.

PURPOSE: The implementation and outcomes of a pharmacist career ladder program (PCLP) at a tertiary care, academic medical center are described. SUMMARY: A PCLP was developed at Yale-New Haven Hospital to guide career development, motivate staff to perform beyond their daily tasks and responsibilities, and recognize and retain high performers through professional advancement. The PCLP advancement criteria include specific requirements for excellence in five categories: level of training and experience, pharmacy practice, drug information, education and scholarship, and leadership. The PCLP is designed with four distinct tiers: clinical pharmacist, clinical pharmacist II, clinical pharmacy specialist, and clinical pharmacy specialist II. The specific criteria are increasingly challenging to achieve when moving up the ladder. Pharmacists may apply voluntarily each year for advancement. A PCLP review committee consisting of pharmacist peers and managers meets annually to discuss and vote on career advancement decisions. Since PCLP implementation, we have observed an increasing success rate for advancement (50% in 2013, 85% in 2014, and 100% in 2015) and a considerable increase in pharmacist participation in clinical and process improvement projects, as well as intervention and medication-use variance documentation. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a PCLP at a tertiary care, academic medical center provided an opportunity for frontline pharmacists to advance professionally and increased their participation and leadership in clinical and process improvement projects and drug-use policy and medication safety initiatives; the program also increased the number of pharmacists with specialty board certification and peer-reviewed publications.