Schizophrenia: opportunities to improve outcomes and reduce economic burden through managed care.

Schizophrenia is a complicated chronic disease affecting approximately 3.5 million people in the United States, and its annual healthcare costs exceed $155 billion. People living with schizophrenia often experience a reduced quality of life (QOL) and are more likely to be homeless, unemployed, or living in poverty compared with the general population. Life expectancy for patients with schizophrenia is 15 to 20 years below the average and is complicated by numerous comorbidities, such as weight gain, increased cardiovascular risk, and changes in mood and cognition. Treatment nonadherence can increase the risk of relapse, rehospitalization, and self-harm, leading to a reduced QOL and increased economic burden. Managed care professionals are positioned to improve adherence and outcomes through various drug utilization strategies. Clinicians may also empower patients with schizophrenia through shared decision making and the creation of a therapeutic alliance. Careful monitoring of medication-related adverse effects and offering potential medication alternatives and routes of administration when indicated may also improve adherence to treatment regimens, resulting in improved outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.

Factors Associated with Diabetes-Related Clinical Inertia in a Managed Care Population and Its Effect on Hemoglobin A1c Goal Attainment: A Claims-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence showing the benefits of treatment intensification following an elevated hemoglobin A1c (A1c), clinical inertia, or failure to establish and/or escalate treatment to achieve treatment goals, is a concern among patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Clinical inertia may contribute to increased health care utilization and costs due to poor clinical outcomes in MCOs. OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify factors associated with clinical inertia in T2DM and (b) determine differences in A1c goal attainment between patients who experience clinical inertia versus treatment intensification in a commercially insured population. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims data were used to identify commercially insured patients in a regional MCO with a recorded A1c ≥ 8.0% between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. In the 4 months following the first elevated A1c value (index date), patients were classified into 2 groups: treatment intensification or clinical inertia. Treatment intensification was defined as the addition of ≥ 1 new noninsulin antihyperglycemic medication, the addition of insulin, or a dose increase of any current noninsulin antihyperglycemic medication. Patients were required to have ≥ 1 follow-up A1c value 6-12 months after the index date and continuous enrollment in the health plan for 12 months before and after the index date. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis for gestational diabetes or type 1 diabetes or if they were on insulin in the pre-index period. The primary outcome of attaining A1c < 7.0% was compared between groups after propensity score matching (PSM). Factors associated with clinical inertia were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: 3,078 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 54.4 (10.6) years and a mean (SD) baseline A1c of 9.6% (1.7), were included in the study. Of these, 1,093 patients (36%) experienced clinical inertia. After PSM, 1,760 patients remained; 880 in each group. In the clinical inertia group, 23% of patients achieved an A1c < 7.0% in the post-index period, compared with 35% in the treatment intensification group (P < 0.001). A greater likelihood of experiencing clinical inertia was associated with baseline treatment with 2 (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.22-2.86; P < 0.001) or ≥ 3 (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.30-2.42; P < 0.001) antihyperglycemic medications (vs. none), baseline age ≥ 65 years (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.63-2.74; P < 0.001), and diagnosis of coronary heart disease (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.10-1.88; P = 0.007). A baseline A1c ≥ 9.0% (vs. 8.0%-8.9%) was associated with a lower likelihood of experiencing clinical inertia (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.48-0.66; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than a third of patients in a commercially insured population with T2DM and a baseline A1c ≥ 8% experienced clinical inertia. Clinical inertia resulted in worse A1c outcomes over the 12-month follow-up period. Results of this study suggest that treatment intensification should be monitored, with efforts made to educate health care providers on strategies aimed at improving glycemic control for high-risk patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by a grant from Janssen Scientific Affairs, which was involved in study design, interpretation of results, and manuscript review. Wander reports consulting fees from Sanofi Aventis outside the submitted work. McAdam-Marx reports grants from Sanofi Aventis and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Pesa and Bailey were employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs during the conduct of the study. Bailey also reports stock ownership in Johnson and Johnson. This study was presented as a poster at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Grapevine, TX.

Antihyperlipidemic Medication Treatment Patterns and Statin Adherence Among Patients with ASCVD in a Managed Care Plan After Release of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) released a new blood cholesterol treatment guideline in November 2013. It is unknown how the new recommendations have affected cholesterol medication use and adherence in a commercial health plan. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the 2013 guideline release on antihyperlipidemic treatment patterns and statin adherence in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared with a historical control group. METHODS: This study was a historical cohort analysis of adult patients (aged 21-75 years) with clinical ASCVD enrolled in a SelectHealth commercial health plan. Patients were included in the guideline implementation cohort if they had a medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis of ASCVD in the year before the November 2013 ACC/AHA guideline release. The index date was defined as the first outpatient medical claim with an ICD-9-CM for ASCVD in the first 6 months after the guideline was released. Patients were required to have continuous enrollment for ≥ 1 year before and after the index date. These same criteria were applied to patients exactly 4 years earlier to identify a historical control group. Patients meeting these criteria formed the antihyperlipidemic treatment patterns cohort. Of these, patients who also had ≥1 pharmacy claim for a statin in the 1-year pre- and post-index periods were included in the statin adherence cohort. Antihyperlipidemic treatment patterns were assessed using pharmacy claims for antihyperlipidemic medications in the 1-year pre- and post-index periods. Antihyperlipidemic medication claims were classified as a nonstatin cholesterol medication, low-intensity statin, moderate-intensity statin, or high-intensity statin. To address differences in pre-index antihyperlipidemic medications between the guideline implementation and historical control groups, patients were randomly matched 1:1 based on pre-index classification in a post hoc analysis. Post-index antihyperlipidemic classifications were compared between groups using a Stuart-Maxwell test. The change in mean statin adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]) was compared within and between groups using paired and independent t-tests, respectively. The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥ 0.80) in the pre- and post-index periods was compared between groups using a chi-square test. A multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of being adherent in the post-index period while controlling for pre-index adherence and other potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 7,818 adult members with ASCVD in the index period and 1 year before the index period were identified. Of those, 1,841 patients met the criteria to be included in the analysis, and 1,526 patients were matched on antihyperlipidemic classification and included in the antihyperlipidemic treatment patterns analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar, although the guideline implementation group was younger (58.3 vs. 60.5 years, P < 0.001), and more were male (74.8% vs. 71.3%, P = 0.106) than the historical control group. In the matched cohort, there was a significant difference in the post-index antihyperlipidemic classification (P < 0.001), which appeared to be a result of the difference in nonstatin cholesterol medications (guideline 6.9% vs. historical 13.0%) and high-intensity statins (guideline 23.7% vs. historical 16.3%). Of the 1,841 patients in the antihyperlipidemic treatment patterns cohort, 919 patients met inclusion criteria for the statin adherence analysis. Although PDC decreased over time in both groups, significantly more patients in the guideline implementation group were adherent in the post-index period than the historical control group (66.5% vs. 57.3%, respectively; P = 0.005). Additionally, patients in the guideline implementation group were more likely than the historical control to be adherent in the post-index period when adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.10-2.03; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Since the release of the updated ACC/AHA treatment guideline, more commercial health plan patients with ASCVD used high-intensity statins and fewer used nonstatin cholesterol medications than historical controls. Additionally, since the guideline release, more patients are adherent to statin therapy than historical controls. This study provides managed care organizations with valuable information regarding the effect of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding or services were received for this work. Outside of the current study, Bellows has received research funding from Biogen Idec, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Shire Development, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and an honorariam from Avanir Pharmaceuticals. Voelker received summer intern support from Pfizer and the AMCP Foundation during the time of this study. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose. All authors contributed to study concept and design and to the revision of the manuscript. Bellows, Olsen, and Voelker collected the data, assisted by Wander; data interpretation was performed primarily by Bellows, along with Olsen and Voelker and assisted by Wander. The manuscript was primarily written by Bellows, along with the other authors.