Cost-Effectiveness of Lecanemab for Individuals With Early-Stage Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of lecanemab (Leqembi), a monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2023 for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease (AD). This study aims to quantify the cost-effectiveness of lecanemab and how it varies based on the accuracy of AD testing and individuals' APOE ε4 status. METHODS: Seven alternative test-treat-target strategies defined by combinations of testing approaches (PET, CSF, or plasma assay), treatment choices (standard of care [SoC] alone or lecanemab in addition to SoC), and targeting strategies (targeting APOE ε4 noncarriers or heterozygous patients or not) were compared. A hybrid decision tree-Markov cohort model was constructed with 5 states: (1) MCI (Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] 0-4.5); (2) mild dementia (CDR-SB 4.6-9.5); (3) moderate dementia (CDR-SB 9.6-16); (4) severe dementia (CDR-SB >16); and (5) death. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years and costs from third-party and societal perspectives were estimated in 2022 US dollars over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Among the 7 test-treat-target strategies, SoC alone was the optimal strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype was cost-effective vs SoC alone, regardless of the test used to diagnose patients with early-stage AD. However, CSF assay followed by targeted treatment would become cost-effective if lecanemab is priced below $5,100 per year. These results were robust to the accuracy of diagnostic testing and rates of lecanemab discontinuation and adverse events. DISCUSSION: Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. Lecanemab would be cost-effective in some settings if priced below $5,100 per year.

Association of Premorbid GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i Prescription Alone and in Combination with COVID-19 Severity.

INTRODUCTION: People with type 2 diabetes are at heightened risk for severe outcomes related to COVID-19 infection, including hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality. This study was designed to examine the impact of premorbid use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) monotherapy, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) monotherapy, and concomitant GLP1-RA/SGLT-2i therapy on the severity of outcomes in individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: Utilizing observational data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative through September 2022, we compared outcomes in 78,806 individuals with a prescription of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i versus a prescription of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) within 24 months of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We also compared concomitant GLP-1RA/SGLT-2i therapy to GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i monotherapy. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality, measured from the positive test date. Secondary outcomes included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation within 14 days. Using a super learner approach and accounting for baseline characteristics, associations were quantified with odds ratios (OR) estimated with targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). RESULTS: Use of GLP-1RA (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.72) and SGLT-2i (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.68) were associated with lower odds of 60-day mortality compared to DPP-4i use. Additionally, the OR of ER visits and hospitalizations were similarly reduced with GLP1-RA and SGLT-2i use. Concomitant GLP-1RA/SGLT-2i use showed similar odds of 60-day mortality when compared to GLP-1RA or SGLT-2i use alone (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05 and OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.01, respectively). However, lower OR of all secondary outcomes were associated with concomitant GLP-1RA/SGLT-2i use when compared to SGLT-2i use alone. CONCLUSION: Among adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, premorbid use of either GLP-1RA or SGLT-2i is associated with lower odds of mortality compared to DPP-4i. Furthermore, concomitant use of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i is linked to lower odds of other severe COVID-19 outcomes, including ER visits, hospitalizations, and mechanical ventilation, compared to SGLT-2i use alone. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Impact of Race on Classification of Atherosclerotic Risk Using a National Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Tool.

Introduction: The use of race in clinical risk prediction tools may exacerbate racial disparities in healthcare access and outcomes. This study quantified the number of individuals reclassified for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease owing to a change in their race alone on the basis of a commonly used risk prediction tool. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of individuals aged 40-75 years without a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or other high-risk features using the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey. Authors compared atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores using the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology equation recommended for White individuals or individuals of other races with that recommended for Black individuals. Results: A total of 2,946 White individuals; 1,361 Black individuals; and 2,495 individuals of other races were included in the analysis. Using the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology equation, the mean 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was 5.80% (95% CI=5.54, 6.06) for White individuals, 7.04% (956% CI=6.69, 7.39) for Black individuals, and 4.93% (95% CI=4.61, 5.24) for individuals of other races. When using the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology equation designated for the opposite race (White/other race versus Black), the mean atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score increased by 1.02% (95% CI=0.90, 1.13) for White individuals, decreased by 1.82% (95% CI= -1.67, -1.96) for Black individuals, and increased by 0.98% (95% CI=0.85, 1.10) for individuals of other races. When using clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease categories of <7.5%, 7.5%-10%, and >10%, 16.93% of all individuals were reclassified when using the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology's equation designated for the opposite race. Conclusions: Changing race within a commonly used cardiovascular risk prediction tool results in significant changes in risk classification among eligible White and Black individuals in the U.S.

Assessment of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for prasugrel (EFFIENT): A narrative review.

Background: Prasugrel, first approved in 2009, was subject to a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to mitigate the risk of bleeding associated with its use. Methods: We performed a narrative review of FDA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Document classification and primary evidence extraction was performed by three authors (TM, JC, and SL). Results: The prasugrel REMS consists of a medication guide and a communication plan. Assessment of the REMS was via patient and clinician surveys. 1560 patients were invited to participate and 212 individuals (13.6 %) completed the survey. Rates of awareness among respondents varied across key messages and were highest for those examining the risks of premature discontinuation (96 % and 88 % of respondents), while lower for those regarding the importance of perioperative discontinuation (66 %) and contraindications posed by a history of stroke (16 %) or transient ischemic attack (17 %). Of the 6000 clinicians invited to participate in the survey, 201 (3.4 %) agreed to take part. Four of 11 key risk messages did not meet prespecified acceptable levels of comprehension. No prespecified levels of patient or provider knowledge were required for the retirement of the REMS, which took place on March 23, 2012 based on the sponsor's request. Conclusions: The prasugrel REMS consisted of passive educational materials whose adequacy was evaluated using highly limited, one-time, cross-sectional surveys. Our assessment adds to evidence suggesting the importance of improving the quality and impact of the FDA's post-approval activities to maximize drug safety.

Association Between Pharmacy Proximity With Cardiovascular Medication Use and Risk Factor Control in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Poor neighborhood-level access to health care, including community pharmacies, contributes to cardiovascular disparities in the United States. The authors quantified the association between pharmacy proximity, antihypertensive and statin use, and blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among a large, diverse US cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional analysis of Black and White participants in the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study during 2013 to 2016 was conducted. The authors designated pharmacy proximity by census tract using road network analysis with population-weighted centroids within a 10-minute drive time, with 5- and 20-minute sensitivity analyses. Pill bottle review measured medication use, and BP and LDL-C were assessed using standard methods. Poisson regression was used to quantify the association between pharmacy proximity with medication use and BP control, and linear regression for LDL-C. Among 16 150 REGARDS participants between 2013 and 2016, 8319 (51.5%) and 8569 (53.1%) had an indication for antihypertensive and statin medication, respectively, and pharmacy proximity data. The authors did not find a consistent association between living in a census tract with higher pharmacy proximity and antihypertensive medication use, BP control, or statin medication use and LDL-C levels, regardless of whether the area was rural, suburban, or urban. Results were similar among the 5- and 20-minute drive-time analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a low pharmacy proximity census tract may be associated with antihypertensive and statin medication use, or with BP control and LDL-C levels. Although, in this US cohort, outcomes were similar for adults living in high or low pharmacy proximity census tracts.

Recreational and Medical Cannabis Legalization and Opioid Prescriptions and Mortality.

Importance: While some have argued that cannabis legalization has helped to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the US, evidence has been mixed. Moreover, existing studies did not account for biases that could arise when policy effects vary over time or across states or when multiple policies are assessed at the same time, as in the case of recreational and medical cannabis legalization. Objective: To quantify changes in opioid prescriptions and opioid overdose deaths associated with recreational and medical cannabis legalization in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quasiexperimental, generalized difference-in-differences analysis used annual state-level data between January 2006 and December 2020 to compare states that legalized recreational or medical cannabis vs those that did not. Intervention: Recreational and medical cannabis law implementation (proxied by recreational and medical cannabis dispensary openings) between 2006 and 2020 across US states. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opioid prescription rates per 100 persons and opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 population based on data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results: Between 2006 and 2020, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 states legalized medical cannabis. There was no statistically significant association of recreational or medical cannabis laws with opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality across the 15-year study period, although the results also suggested a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100 000 population; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.30; P = .04). Sensitivity analyses excluding state economic indicators, accounting for additional opioid laws and using alternative ways to code treatment dates yielded substantively similar results, suggesting the absence of statistically significant associations between cannabis laws and the outcomes of interest during the full study period. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that, after accounting for biases due to possible heterogeneous effects and simultaneous assessment of recreational and medical cannabis legalization, the implementation of recreational or medical cannabis laws was not associated with opioid prescriptions or opioid mortality, with the exception of a possible reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis law implementation.

Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.

The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.

Risk of Major Bleeding Associated with Concomitant Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulant and Clopidogrel Use: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Combined anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy is often indicated in adults with cardiovascular disease and atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study aim was to assess the comparative risk of bleeding between rivaroxaban and apixaban when combined with clopidogrel. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured US adults newly treated with a combination of rivaroxaban+clopidogrel or apixaban+clopidogrel (2015-2018) using Merative™ Marketscan Research Databases. We used propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance the treatment groups. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the risk of major bleeding. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2895 rivaroxaban+clopidogrel users and 3628 apixaban+clopidogrel users. The median (range) duration of follow up was 61 (73) days. Rivaroxaban+clopidogrel users had a similar risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban+clopidogrel users (IPTW incidence rate per 100 person-years 7.96 vs 7.38; IPTW hazard ratio [HR] 1.13 [95% CI 0.78-1.63]). In the subcohort of adults who were treated with DOAC or clopidogrel monotherapy prior to the combined therapy, the risk of major bleeding did not differ by the drug of monotherapy (IPTW HR for rivaroxaban+clopidogrel group: 0.66 [95% CI 0.33-1.32]; IPTW HR for apixaban+clopidogrel group: 1.10 [95% CI 0.55-2.23]) CONCLUSIONS: In our study of commercially insured US adults, the concomitant use of rivaroxaban+clopidogrel and apixaban+clopidogrel conferred a similar risk of major bleeding. DOAC versus clopidogrel monotherapy prior to the concomitant therapy did not influence the risk of major bleeding.

Sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries taking prescription drugs subject to price negotiations.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act authorizes Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs in 2026 and additional drugs thereafter. Understanding the sociodemographic and spending characteristics of beneficiaries taking these specific drugs could be important describing the impact of the legislation. OBJECTIVE: To describe sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use the 10 prescription drugs ("negotiated drugs") that will face Medicare drug price negotiations in 2026. METHODS: A 20% sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2020 (n = 10,224,642) was used. Sociodemographic and spending characteristics were descriptively reported for beneficiaries taking the negotiated drugs, including subgroups by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and by drug, and for Part D beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. RESULTS: Part D beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with Part D beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug overall had similar sociodemographic characteristics, more comorbidities (3.9 vs 2.2) and higher mean [median] Medicare ($33,882 [$18,251] vs $12,366 [$3,429]) and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending ($813 [$307] vs $441 [$160]). There was variation in characteristics by LIS status. The mean age was highest among non-LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug and beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug (76.2 vs 69.9 vs 71.4). Among beneficiaries using negotiated drugs, a higher percentage of LIS beneficiaries compared with non-LIS was female (59.7% vs 48.0%), was Black (20.9% vs 6.6%), and resided in lower-income areas (39.1% vs 20.3%). Mean [median] annual Part D OOP spending for negotiated drugs was $115 [$59] for beneficiaries with LIS and $1,475 [$1,204] for beneficiaries without LIS. There were also differences depending on which negotiated drug was used. Drugs for cancer and blood clots had the highest proportions of White users, whereas type 2 diabetes and heart failure drugs had the highest proportions of Black users and beneficiaries residing in lower-income areas. Annual Part D OOP costs were lowest for sitagliptin (LIS: $104 [$60], non-LIS: $1,391 [$1,153]) and highest for ibrutinib (LIS: $649 [$649], non-LIS: $6,449 [$6,867]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, 24% (22% to 76%) had more than $2,000 in OOP costs. CONCLUSIONS: Inflation Reduction Act OOP spending caps and LIS expansion will lower prescription drug costs for beneficiaries with OOP costs exceeding $2,000 who are mostly White and live in higher-income areas, insulin users who are disproportionately Black with multiple chronic conditions, and beneficiaries with low incomes. However, these provisions will not impact the 76% of non-LIS beneficiaries using negotiated drugs who have OOP costs that are still substantial but below $2,000. Negotiations could reduce OOP costs through reduced coinsurance payments for this group, which is older and has more chronic conditions compared with beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. Part D plan design, spending, and utilization changes should be monitored after negotiation to determine if further solutions are needed to lower OOP costs for this group.

Potential drug-drug interactions among U.S. adults treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: A cross-sectional study of the National Covid Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of potential moderate to severe drug-drug interactions (DDIs) involving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, identify interacting medications, and evaluate risk factors associated with potential DDIs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. DATA SOURCE: Electronic health records from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative Enclave, one of the largest COVID-19 data resources in the United States. PATIENTS: Outpatients aged ≥18 years and started nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between December 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022. INTERVENTION: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome is potential moderate to severe DDIs, defined as starting interacting medications reported by National Institutes of Health 30 days before or 10 days after starting nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3214 outpatients who started nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, the mean age was 56.8 ± 17.1 years, 39.5% were male, and 65.8% were non-Hispanic white. Overall, 521 (16.2%) were potentially exposed to at least one moderate to severe DDI, most commonly to atorvastatin (19.2% of all DDIs), hydrocodone (14.0%), or oxycodone (14.0%). After adjustment for covariates, potential DDIs were more likely among individuals who were older (odds ratio [OR] 1.16 per 10-year increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.25), male (OR 1.36, CI 1.09-1.71), smokers (OR 1.38, CI 1.10-1.73), on more co-medications (OR 1.35, CI 1.31-1.39), and with a history of solid organ transplant (OR 3.63, CI 2.05-6.45). CONCLUSIONS: One in six of individuals receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were at risk of a potential moderate or severe DDI, underscoring the importance of clinical and pharmacy systems to mitigate such risks.

Single and combined use of fall-risk-increasing drugs and fracture risk: a population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: while many drug groups are associated with falls in older people, less is known about absolute increases in risk and how these risks vary across different groups of drugs or individuals. METHOD AND DESIGN: we conducted a population based nested case-control study among people aged ≥65 years in the Scottish regions of Tayside and Fife. Cases were individuals hospitalised with a fracture between 2010 and 2020, to whom we matched up to 10 controls. We examined relative and absolute risks of drug groups known as 'Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs' (FRIDs), alone and in combination, and among younger and older (≥75 years) adults. Adjusting for previous hospitalisations, drug use and laboratory data, we used conditional logistic regression to quantify associations between drug exposures and outcomes. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: the cohort comprised 246,535 people aged ≥65 years, of whom 18,456 suffered an incident fracture. Fracture risks were significantly increased for most FRIDs examined. Absolute risks were much larger among older vs younger people and both relative and absolute risks increased with the number of FRIDs combined. Overall, the highest absolute increase in risk were found in people aged ≥75 years for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (number needed to harm 53), tricyclic antidepressants (NNH 81), antipsychotics (NNH 75) and use of three or more FRIDs (NNH ≤66). CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥75 years prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics or taking three or more drugs that increase risk of falls may benefit most from deprescribing interventions.

Effect of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) on Hospitalization among Adults with COVID-19: an EHR-based Target Trial Emulation from N3C.

This study leverages electronic health record data in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative's (N3C) repository to investigate disparities in Paxlovid treatment and to emulate a target trial assessing its effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 hospitalization rates. From an eligible population of 632,822 COVID-19 patients seen at 33 clinical sites across the United States between December 23, 2021 and December 31, 2022, patients were matched across observed treatment groups, yielding an analytical sample of 410,642 patients. We estimate a 65% reduced odds of hospitalization among Paxlovid-treated patients within a 28-day follow-up period, and this effect did not vary by patient vaccination status. Notably, we observe disparities in Paxlovid treatment, with lower rates among Black and Hispanic or Latino patients, and within socially vulnerable communities. Ours is the largest study of Paxlovid's real-world effectiveness to date, and our primary findings are consistent with previous randomized control trials and real-world studies.

Patterns of Manufacturer Coupon Use for Prescription Drugs in the US, 2017-2019.

Importance: Although manufacturer-sponsored coupons are commonly used, little is known about how patients use them within a treatment episode. Objectives: To examine when and how frequently patients use manufacturer coupons during a treatment episode for a chronic condition, and to characterize factors associated with more frequent use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study of a 5% nationally representative sample of anonymized longitudinal retail pharmacy claims data from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2019, obtained from IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer. The data were analyzed from September to December 2022. Patients with new treatment episodes using at least 1 manufacturer coupon over a 12-month period were identified. This study focused on patients with 3 or more fills for a given drug and characterized the association of the outcomes of interest with patient, drug, and drug class characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were (1) the frequency of coupon use, measured as the proportion of prescription fills accompanied by manufacturer coupon within the treatment episode, and (2) the timing of first coupon use relative to the first prescription fill within the treatment episode. Results: A total of 36 951 treatment episodes accounted for 238 474 drug claims and 35 352 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [18.2] years; 17 676 women [50.0%]). Among these episodes, nearly all instances (35 103 episodes [95.0%]) of first coupon use occurred within the first 4 prescription fills. Approximately two-thirds of treatment episodes (24 351 episodes [65.9%]) used a coupon for the incident fill. Coupons were used for a median (IQR) of 3 (2-6) fills. The median (IQR) proportion of fills with a coupon was 70.0% (33.3%-100.0%), and many patients discontinued the drug after the last coupon. After adjustment for covariates, there was no significant association between an individual's out-of-pocket costs or neighborhood-level income and the frequency of coupon use. The estimated proportion of fills with a coupon was greater for products in competitive (19.5% increase; 95% CI, 2.1%-36.9%) or oligopolistic (14.5% increase; 95% CI, 3.5%-25.6%) markets than monopoly markets when there is only 1 drug in the therapeutic class. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort analysis of individuals receiving pharmaceutical treatment for chronic diseases, the frequency of manufacturer-sponsored drug coupon use was associated with the degree of market competition, rather than patients' out-of-pocket costs.

Medical use and combination drug therapy among US adult users of central nervous system stimulants: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Examine patterns of adult medical use of amphetamine and methylphenidate stimulant drugs, classified in the USA as Schedule II controlled substances with a high potential for psychological or physical dependence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prescription drug claims for US adults, age 19-64 years, included in a commercial insurance claims database with 9.1 million continuously enrolled adults from 1 October 2019, through 31 December 2020. Stimulant use was defined as adults filling one or more stimulant prescriptions during calendar 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was an outpatient prescription claim, service date and days' supply for central nervous system (CNS)-active drugs. Combination-2 was defined as 60 days or more of combination treatment with a Schedule II stimulant and one or more additional CNS-active drugs. Combination-3 therapy was defined as the addition of 2 or more additional CNS-active drugs. Using service date and days' supply, we examined the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the 366 days of 2020. RESULTS: Among 9 141 877 continuously enrolled adults, the study identified 276 223 individuals (3.0%) using Schedule II stimulants during 2020. They filled a median of 8 (IQR, 4-11) prescriptions for these stimulant drugs that provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure. Among this group, 125 781 (45.5%) combined use of one or more additional CNS active drugs for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days. Also, 66 996 (24.3%) stimulant users used two or more additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days. Among stimulants users, 131 485 (47.6%) were exposed to an antidepressant, 85 166 (30.8%) filled prescriptions for anxiety/sedative/hypnotic medications and 54 035 (19.6%) received opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of adults using Schedule II stimulants are simultaneously exposed to one or more other CNS-active drugs, many with tolerance, withdrawal effects or potential for non-medical use. There are no approved indications and limited clinical trial testing of these multi-drug combinations, and discontinuation may be challenging.

Estimated Use of Prescription Medications Among Individuals Incarcerated in Jails and State Prisons in the US.

Importance: Although incarcerated individuals experience higher rates of chronic conditions, little is known regarding the use of prescription medications in jails and prisons in the US. Objective: To characterize treatment with prescription medications in jails and state prisons relative to noncorrectional settings in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis using 2018 to 2020 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimated the prevalence of disease among recently incarcerated and nonincarcerated adults in the US. The study used 2018 to 2020 IQVIA's National Sales Perspective (NSP) to quantify the distribution of medications to incarcerated and nonincarcerated populations. The NSP provides national dollar and unit sales of prescription medications across multiple distribution channels, including prisons and jails. The study population included incarcerated and nonincarcerated individuals from NSDUH. Seven common chronic conditions were assessed. Data were analyzed in May 2022. Exposures: Medications being sent to correctional facilities vs all other settings in the US. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were distribution of medications to treat diabetes, asthma, hypertension, hepatitis B and C, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), depression, and severe mental illness to incarcerated and nonincarcerated populations. Results: The proportion of pharmaceuticals distributed to jails and state prisons to treat type 2 diabetes (0.15%), asthma (0.15%), hypertension (0.18%), hepatitis B or C (1.68%), HIV (0.73%), depression (0.36%), and severe mental illness (0.48%) was much lower compared with the relative burden of disease among this population. The incarcerated population in state prisons and jails accounted for 0.44% (95% CI, 0.34%-0.56%) of estimated individuals with diabetes, 0.85% (95% CI, 0.67%-1.06%) of individuals with asthma, 0.42% (95% CI, 0.35%-0.51%) of hypertension, 3.13% (95% CI, 2.53%-3.84%) of hepatitis B or C, 2.20% (95% CI, 1.51%-3.19%) of HIV, 1.46% (95% CI, 1.33%-1.59%) of depression, and 1.97% (95% CI, 1.81%-2.14%) of severe mental illness. After adjusting for disease prevalence, the relative disparity was 2.9-fold for diabetes, 5.5-fold for asthma, 2.4-fold for hypertension, 1.9-fold for hepatitis B or C, 3.0-fold for HIV, 4.1-fold for depression, and 4.1-fold for severe mental illness. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional, descriptive study of the distribution of prescription medications for chronic conditions in jails and state prisons, the findings suggest that there may be underuse of pharmacological treatment in correctional facilities relative to the nonincarcerated population. These findings, which require further investigation, may reflect inadequate care in jails and prisons and represent a critical public health issue.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.

Importance: Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising. Objective: To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics. Exposures: Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug. Results: The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales. Conclusions and Relevance: Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Inclusion of Participants with CKD and Other Kidney-Related Considerations during Clinical Drug Development: Landscape Analysis of Anticancer Agents Approved from 2015 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has prioritized efforts to expand availability of therapies, including anticancer agents, for patients with CKD. US Food and Drug Administration Guidance recommends inclusion of study participants with CKD in clinical trials, improving pharmacokinetic characterization in people with decreased GFR, and using contemporary GFR assessment methods during drug development. We performed a landscape analysis of anticancer agents approved from 2015 to 2019 to evaluate inclusion of study participants with CKD and GFR assessment methods used during drug development and subsequent translation to kidney-related safety and dosing data in product labeling. METHODS: Oncology drugs approved from 2015 to 2019 and associated pivotal trials were identified. We evaluated inclusion of study participants with CKD in pivotal trials and pharmacokinetic analyses, investigated GFR assessment methods used for pivotal trial eligibility and renal pharmacokinetic analyses, and identified kidney-related adverse drug event and dosing information. RESULTS: A total of 55 drugs and 74 pivotal trials were included. Of the pivotal trials, 95% contained kidney-related eligibility criteria, including 68% with GFR-based eligibility. The median lower limit of GFR required for inclusion was 45 ml/min or ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed in CKD stages 4-5 and hemodialysis for only 29% and 6% of drugs, respectively. Estimated creatinine clearance was used in over 60% and 80% of pivotal trials and pharmacokinetic analyses, respectively. Reporting of kidney-related adverse drug events was highly variable. Product labeling for 49% of drugs contained no kidney dosing information. CONCLUSIONS: Study participants with CKD continue to be excluded from anticancer drug development, and GFR estimation in pivotal trials and renal pharmacokinetic analyses remains imprecise and heterogeneous. Furthermore, kidney-related safety and dosing information is scarcely and inconsistently presented.

Comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in asthma: A target trial emulation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We emulated a hypothetical randomized trial using electronic health records from a large US-based academic health care system. Participants aged 18 years or older with baseline IgE levels between 30 and 700 IU/mL and peripheral eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL were eligible for study inclusion. The study period extended from March 2016 to August 2021. Outcomes included the incidence of asthma-related exacerbations and change in baseline FEV1 value over 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 68 individuals receiving dupilumab, 68 receiving omalizumab, and 65 receiving mepolizumab met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 exacerbations occurred over 68 person years (0.46 exacerbations per person year) in the dupilumab group, 63 over 68 person years (0.93 per person year) in the omalizumab group, and 86 over 65 person years (1.32 per person year) in the mepolizumab group (adjusted incidence rate ratios: dupilumab vs mepolizumab, 0.28 [95% CI = 0.09-0.84]; dupilumab vs omalizumab, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.12-1.09]; and omalizumab vs mepolizumab, 0.78 [95% CI = 0.32-1.91]). The differences in the change in FEV1 comparing patients who received the different biologics were as follows: 0.11 L (95% CI = -0.003 to 0.222 L) for dupilumab versus mepolizumab, 0.082 L (95% CI -0.040 to 0.204 L) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, and 0.026 L (95% CI -0.083 to 0.140 L) for omalizumab versus mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with asthma and eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL and IgE levels of 30 to 700 kU/L, dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in exacerbation and FEV1 value than omalizumab and mepolizumab.