A Case-control Study to Evaluate the Prevalence of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among Patients with Moderate-to-severe Psoriasis.

Objective: International case-control studies have demonstrated that psoriasis is associated with an increased prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The purpose of the present study was to establish an association of psoriasis and NAFLD in patients attending a dermatology clinic center in the United States. Design: This was an observational, case-control study. Setting: The study setting was an outpatient dermatology clinic of the George Washington Medical Faculty Associates in Washington DC. Participants: One hundred fifty-one adult patients with psoriasis and 51 control subjects were recruited. Measurements: NAFLD was diagnosed by ultrasonography after excluding secondary causes of liver disease. Regression analysis was used to assess the associations between: 1) NAFLD and psoriasis and 2) metabolic syndrome components and NAFLD among psoriasis patients. Results: NAFLD was more prevalent in patients with psoriasis (21.2% vs. 7.8%, p<0.04). However, psoriasis was not associated with NAFLD when matching for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio: 2.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-13.6; p=0.25). As compared to patients with psoriasis but without NAFLD, those with NAFLD were more likely to have obesity (BMI: 34.9 vs. 27.2, 95% CI: 32.4-37.5 vs. 25.9-28.5; p<0.01). NAFLD in patients with psoriasis was also associated with select components of metabolic syndrome, including hyperglycemia and hyperlipidemia. Conclusion: Our findings show there is an association of psoriasis with NAFLD. Our findings also suggest an increased presence of metabolic syndrome components in patients with psoriasis and NAFLD. Trial registry: NCT00930384.

Patient Awareness of Local Drug Price Variation and the Factors That Influence Pharmacy Choice: A Cross-sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket drug expenditures are increasingly common in dermatology. Patients may not be aware that prices vary among pharmacies and consequently may not shop for the lowest cost. OBJECTIVE: To determine what factors influence pharmacy choice and the effect of providing local prescription prices on pharmacy selection. We hypothesized that patients do not "shop around" due to lack of knowledge of price variation and would choose a pharmacy based on costs if educated on price disparity. METHODS: Between July and August 2016, we administered a cross-sectional anonymous survey to adults visiting four outpatient clinics at an academic tertiary care center in Washington, D.C. Participants answered questions before and after viewing a list of prescription drug prices from local pharmacies. RESULTS: 287 surveys were administered to a convenience sample of adults (age ≥ 18 and literate in English). Of the 287 participants, 218 fully completed the survey; 55.1% were women and 40.5% were over age 40. When considering a cost savings of $10-25, 65% would switch pharmacies if the distance were the same, and 21.3% would switch if the distance were 45-minutes further. After price education, fewer participants felt that drug price knowledge would ultimately influence pharmacy choice (P less than 0.0001). However, respondents' intended frequency of researching price online, calling a pharmacy to ask about price, and comparing price between pharmacies before filling a prescription all increased, compared to prior self-reported frequencies (P less than 0.001). Specifically, participants with $75,000-$99,999 income were more likely to compare prices than those with income below $45,000 (odds ratio [OR], 4.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-17.28). CONCLUSION: In this study, pharmacy choice was more influenced by convenience than cost prior to drug price education. However, price education ultimately impacted intent to research prescription drug prices before selecting a pharmacy. Thus, knowledge of drug pricing may be useful in creating cost savings for patients.

Biosimilars: potential implications for clinicians.

With the expiration of patent protection for several biologics looming, the production of highly similar therapeutic agents has begun to emerge on the pharmaceutical market. These alternative drugs are referred to as biosimilars. Many anticipate that the introduction of these agents will result in a reduction in health care costs, which may create a more affordable biopharmaceutical market and also improve patient access. In contrast to generics, which are exact copies of their original products, biosimilars are not identical to their reference products. Due to concern about the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, separate regulatory approval pathways have been developed and implemented by several countries, including the US and Europe. Europe has led the way in acceptance of biosimilars into mainstream clinical practice. Biosimilars are not generic products and require extensive clinical and nonclinical bioequivalence studies before receiving marketing approval. Not only is there a lengthy developmental process, but also they will likely be required to have postmarketing surveillance and ongoing safety monitoring to keep track of issues that may arise, such as immunogenicity. Although US Food and Drug Administration approved the first biosimilar product in March 2015, physicians remain unfamiliar about their indications.