Older Medicare Beneficiaries Frequently Continue Medications with Limited Benefit Following Hospice Admission.

BACKGROUND: The use of medications not relieving symptoms or maximizing quality of life should be minimized following hospice enrollment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of and predictive factors for continuation of medications with limited benefit after hospice admission among those admitted for cancer- and non-cancer-related causes. DESIGN: Cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. PATIENTS: Medicare Part D-enrolled beneficiaries 66 years and older who were admitted to and died under hospice care between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013 (N = 70,035). MAIN MEASURES: Patients were followed from hospice enrollment through death for Part D dispensing of limited benefit medications (LBMs) they had used in the 6 months prior to hospice admission, including anti-hyperlipidemics, anti-hypertensives, oral anti-diabetics, anti-platelets, anti-dementia medications, anti-osteoporotic medications, and proton pump inhibitors. The proportion of patients continuing an LBM after hospice admission was evaluated. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) were estimated for factors associated with LBM continuation. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 29.8% and 30.5% of patients admitted to hospice for a cancer- and non-cancer-related cause, respectively, continued at least one LBM after hospice admission. Anti-dementia medications were continued most frequently (29.3%) while anti-osteoporotic medications were continued least often (14.1%). Compared to home hospice, LBM continuation was greater in hospice patients residing in skilled nursing (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.20-1.29), non-skilled nursing (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.25-1.32), and assisted living facilities (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.24-1.32). Patients with hospice stays ≥ 180 days were more likely to continue at least one LBM compared to those with stays of 1 week or less (RR 13.11, 95% CI 12.25-14.02). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of Medicare hospice beneficiaries continued to receive LBMs following hospice enrollment. Providers should evaluate the necessity of continuing non-palliative medications at the end of life through a careful, patient-centric consideration of their potential risks and benefits.

Use of Nonpalliative Medications Following Burdensome Health Care Transitions in Hospice Patients: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited benefit medications (LBMs), those medications with questionable benefit at the end of life, are often recommended for discontinuation in hospice patients. Transitions in care are associated with inappropriate prescribing in older and terminally ill populations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between burdensome health care transitions and subsequent receipt of LBMs in older hospice patients. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort analysis of patients admitted to hospice between 2008 and 2013 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. The prevalence of post-health care transition LBM use was assessed. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated for the association between transitions and subsequent receipt of LBMs. RESULTS: In total, 17.9% of 7064 hospice patients received at least 1 LBM following their first burdensome health care transition. Posttransition continuation of a medication class used before hospice admission was most common for antidementia medications (14.2%) and antihypertensives (11.2%). Transitions were associated with a 33% increase in the risk of receiving at least 1 LBM [IRR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-1.42], increasing to 56% when evaluating only hospitalization transitions (IRR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.39-1.76). Medication classes more likely to be dispensed after a transition included antihyperlipidemics (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), antihypertensives (IRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40), and proton-pump inhibitors (IRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Burdensome health care transitions were associated with the receipt of nonpalliative medications in older hospice patients. Interventions aimed at improving provider communication and reducing fragmentation in care may help reduce unnecessary medication use in this vulnerable population.

Medicare Part D Use of Older Medicare Beneficiaries Admitted to Hospice.

OBJECTIVES: To describe medications that older hospice beneficiaries receive through Medicare Part D and assess patterns in Part D use for individuals admitted to hospice for cancer and noncancer causes. DESIGN: Descriptive cohort analysis using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. SETTING: U.S. hospice programs PARTICIPANTS: Part D-enrolled Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older who were admitted to hospice and died while under hospice care between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013 (N = 88,957). MEASUREMENTS: We determined the 25 most commonly dispensed medications and the prevalence of at least 1 dispensing through Part D after hospice admission. The prevalence and temporal trends in receipt of opioid analgesics and several preventative medication classes are described. RESULTS: More than half of individuals admitted to hospice for cancer (53.5%) and noncancer causes (52.9%) received at least 1 medication through Part D after hospice admission. The prevalence of receiving at least 1 Part D medication after admission was greatest in individuals admitted for debility or failure to thrive (63.5%) and dementia (61.5%) and lowest in those admitted for ischemic stroke (35.4%) and renal disease (36.0%). Beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors, and statins were among the most common preventative drug classes received overall, although prevalence differed according to admission diagnosis. Nearly 1 in 6 individuals received opioids through Part D after admission, with prevalence steadily decreasing over the study period. CONCLUSION: Receipt of medications through Medicare Part D after hospice admission is common, particularly for preventative medications, and varies according to admission diagnosis. Further research aimed at better understanding individual-, provider-, and healthcare system-level contributors to nonpalliative medication use in the hospice population is warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II-IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF-related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost-effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.

Meeting the challenge of COPD care delivery in the USA: a multiprovider perspective.

The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA continues to grow. Although progress has been made in the the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and care guidelines, whether patients' quality of life is improved will ultimately depend on the actual implementation of care and an individual patient's access to that care. In this Commission, we summarise expert opinion from key stakeholders-patients, caregivers, and medical professionals, as well as representatives from health systems, insurance companies, and industry-to understand barriers to care delivery and propose potential solutions. Health care in the USA is delivered through a patchwork of provider networks, with a wide variation in access to care depending on a patient's insurance, geographical location, and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, Medicare's complicated coverage and reimbursement structure pose unique challenges for patients with chronic respiratory disease who might need access to several types of services. Throughout this Commission, recurring themes include poor guideline implementation among health-care providers and poor patient access to key treatments such as affordable maintenance drugs and pulmonary rehabilitation. Although much attention has recently been focused on the reduction of hospital readmissions for COPD exacerbations, health systems in the USA struggle to meet these goals, and methods to reduce readmissions have not been proven. There are no easy solutions, but engaging patients and innovative thinkers in the development of solutions is crucial. Financial incentives might be important in raising engagement of providers and health systems. Lowering co-pays for maintenance drugs could result in improved adherence and, ultimately, decreased overall health-care spending. Given the substantial geographical diversity, health systems will need to find their own solutions to improve care coordination and integration, until better data for interventions that are universally effective become available.

Assessing outcomes and perceived benefits of a professional development seminar series.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of alumni who were enrolled in a professional development seminar series during their doctor of pharmacy program. DESIGN: A weekly development seminar series was administered over 5 semesters with the goal of bringing academic advisees together to help develop performance-based abilities, prepare them for entry into the profession after graduation, and provide exposure to different career opportunities. ASSESSMENT: A survey instrument containing 39 Likert-type scale items, 2 open-ended questions, and a 10-item demographic survey was created and content-validated to assess the effect of the seminar series on alumni advisees' perceived outcomes and professional development since their graduation. The survey was electronically forwarded to advisees from the graduating classes of 2005 to 2012, and response data was collected with Qualtrics, a web-based survey service. A total of 36 percent of alumni responded to the survey. Respondents cited exposure to career alternatives and opportunities, development of presentation and communication skills, networking, and the importance of advisor/mentor relationships as benefits of the seminar series. CONCLUSION: The professional development seminar series has demonstrated a positive impact on alumni advisees' career development and professional outcomes, most notably relating to career path exposure, communication skills, and advisor/mentor relationships.

Cost effectiveness of liraglutide in type II diabetes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As novel treatments for type II diabetes enter the market, there is a need to assess their long-term clinical and economic outcomes against currently available treatment alternatives. Objective compilation and evaluation of current pharmacoeconomic evidence can assist payers and decision makers in determining the appropriate place in therapy of a new medication. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to review the existing pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating the cost effectiveness and overall costs of treatment associated with liraglutide in type II diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Medical literature indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through 1 June 2014 was searched. STUDY SELECTION: Full-text, English-language cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and other cost analyses in type II diabetes that compared liraglutide to one or more anti-diabetic agents were included. Initial screening was based on relevance of titles and abstracts followed by examination of the study methods of each remaining manuscript. Studies conducting original pharmacoeconomic analyses were chosen for inclusion. STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS: Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved, and information on the study design and results was abstracted. Abstracted data elements were chosen and assessed based on the authors' experience as well as criteria set forth by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Task Force. Additionally, reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and selected sensitivity analysis results were converted to $US, year 2012 values, in order to facilitate comparison across studies. RESULTS: A total of six cost studies and seven cost-utility studies were identified for inclusion. Across cost studies, liraglutide treatment resulted in costs ranging from a loss of $US2,730 (liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. sitagliptin; pharmacy costs only) over a 1-year time horizon to a savings of $US9,367 (liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride; diabetes-related complication costs only) over a 30-year time horizon. Cost-utility analysis results reported base-case ICERs ranging from $US15,774 (vs. glimepiride) to $US40,128 (vs. rosiglitazone) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ($US, year 2012) for liraglutide 1.2 mg and $US8,497 (vs. exenatide) to $US66,031 (vs. rosiglitazone)/QALY ($US, year 2012) for liraglutide 1.8 mg. Estimates were most sensitive to variations in time horizon and cardiovascular complication rates. Based on frequently cited, country-specific cost-utility thresholds, liraglutide was determined to have a probability of being cost effective of between 58 % (liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. sitagliptin) and 93 % (liraglutide 1.2 mg vs. glimepiride). LIMITATIONS: Weaknesses of included studies related primarily to study model inputs that assumed long-term morbidity and mortality benefits in favor of liraglutide based on improvements in clinical biomarkers observed in short-term clinical trials. The exclusion of drug acquisition costs in two identified cost studies as well as the assumed lifetime duration of treatment with liraglutide in several cost-utility studies were also identified as weaknesses. The authors' review was limited by the possibility of incomplete literature retrieval, unintended omission of relevant data elements, and comparison of costs and ICERs generated from healthcare systems from differing countries. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature presents liraglutide as a cost-effective adjunct treatment for type II diabetes that may also be associated with a reduction in diabetes-related complication costs; however, ICER values are largely dependent on assumptions regarding the benefits of long-term liraglutide treatment and the time horizon of the analysis. Real-world use may make liraglutide unattractive from a payer and policy-maker perspective.

Stakeholder views on pharmacogenomic testing.

Pharmacogenomics has an important role in the evolution of personalized medicine, and its widespread uptake may ultimately depend on the interests and perspectives of key players in health care. Our aim was to summarize studies on stakeholder perspectives and attitudes toward pharmacogenomic testing. Thus, we conducted a review of original research studies that reported stakeholder views on pharmacogenomic testing using a structured approach in PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and EMBASE. A standardized data abstraction form was developed that included stakeholder group of interest-patients, general public, providers, and payers. Stakeholder views regarding barriers to pharmacogenetic implementation were organized into the following themes: ancillary information-related, clinical, economic, educational, ethical or legal, medical mistrust, and practicality. Of 34 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 37 perspectives were reported (15 on providers, 9 on the general public, 9 on patients, and 4 on payers). The most common topics that arose in studies of providers related to clinical usefulness of genetic data (n=11) and educational needs (n=11). Among the general public, the most common concerns were medical mistrust (n=5), insufficient education (n=5), and practicality (n=5). The most prevalent issues from the patient perspective were ethical or legal (n=6) and economic (n=5) issues. Among payers, leading issues were practicality (n=4) and clinical usefulness (n=3). There was overlap in the topics and concerns across stakeholder perspectives, including lack of knowledge about pharmacogenomic testing. Views on issues related to privacy, cost, and test result dissemination varied by stakeholder perspective. Limited research had been conducted in underrepresented groups. Efforts to address the issues raised by stakeholders may facilitate the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into clinical practice.