Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies.

Importance: The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost. Objective: To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials. Design and Settings: In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Results: A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Using Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OACs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation, but the predictors of LAAO use in routine care are unclear. We aimed to assess the utilization trends of LAAO and compare the change in characteristics of LAAO users versus OACs since its marketing. METHODS: Using the US Medicare claims database (March 15, 2015, to December 31, 2020), we identified patients with atrial fibrillation, ≥65 years, and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 (men) or ≥3 (women), with either first implantation of an LAAO device or initiation of OACs, including apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, or warfarin. Patient characteristics, measured 365 days before the first LAAO or OAC use date, were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 30 058 LAAO recipients (mean age, 77.74 years; female, 42.1%) and 792 600 OAC initiators (mean age, 78.48; female, 53.3%). In 2020, patients had higher odds of initiating LAAO use than in 2015 (0.52 versus 9.32%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 13.64 [95% CI, 12.56-14.81]). Old age (ie, >85 versus 65-75 years; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.80-0.88]), female sex (aOR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.71-0.76]), Black race (aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.58-0.68]) versus White race, and Medicaid eligibility (aOR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.58-0.64]) were associated with lower odds of receiving LAAO. Among clinical characteristics, frailty, cancer, fractures, and venous thromboembolism were associated with lower odds of LAAO use, while history of intracranial and extracranial bleeding, coagulopathy, and falls were associated with higher odds of receiving LAAO. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation receiving stroke-preventive therapy, LAAO use increased rapidly from 2015 to 2020 and was positively associated with the risk factors for OAC complications but negatively associated with old age, advanced frailty, and cancer. Black race and female sex were associated with a lower likelihood of receiving LAAO.

Pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of simulation training on high-risk prescribing to older adults by junior physicians.

BACKGROUND: High-risk medications like benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and antipsychotics are commonly prescribed for hospitalized older adults, despite guidelines recommending avoidance. Prior interventions have not fully addressed how physicians make such prescribing decisions, particularly when experiencing stress or cognitive overload. Simulation training may help improve prescribing decision-making but has not been evaluated for overprescribing. METHODS: In this two-arm pragmatic trial, we randomized 40 first-year medical resident physicians (i.e., interns) on inpatient general medicine services at an academic medical center to either intervention (a 40-minute immersive simulation training) or control (online educational training) groups. The primary outcome was the number of new benzodiazepine, sedative hypnotic, or antipsychotic orders for treatment-naïve older adults during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the same outcome by all providers, being discharged on one of the medications, and orders for related or control medications. Outcomes were measured using electronic health record data over each intern's service period (~2 weeks). Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for clustering. RESULTS: In total, 522 treatment-naïve older adult patients were included in analyses. Over follow-up, interns prescribed ≥1 high-risk medication for 13 (4.9%) intervention patients and 13 (5.0%) control patients. The intervention led to no difference in the number of new prescriptions (Rate Ratio [RR]: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.31-2.35) versus control and no difference in secondary outcomes. In secondary analyses, intervention interns wrote significantly fewer "as-needed" ("PRN") order types for the high-risk medications (RR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.08-0.99), and instead tended to write more "one-time" orders than control interns, though this difference was not statistically significant (RR: 2.20, 95%CI: 0.60-7.99). CONCLUSIONS: Although this simulation intervention did not impact total high-risk prescribing for hospitalized older adults, it did influence how the interns prescribed, resulting in fewer PRN orders, suggesting possibly greater ownership of care. Future interventions should consider this insight and implementation lessons raised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov(NCT04668248).

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Characteristics of Patients Receiving Novel Muscular Dystrophy Drugs in Trials vs Routine Care.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration approved eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in 2016 based on a controversial pivotal study that demonstrated a limited effect on the surrogate measure of dystrophin production. Other DMD treatments in the same class followed. Objective: To assess how patients receiving novel DMD treatments in postapproval clinical settings compare with patients in the clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected data on patients who initiated 1 of 4 novel DMD treatments (eteplirsen, golodirsen, viltolarsen, and casimersen) using national claims databases of commercially insured (Merative MarketScan and Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart Database [CDM]) and Medicaid patients between September 19, 2016, and March 31, 2022. Patients were followed for 1 year after the date of first use of any novel DMD treatment. In addition, patients in pivotal DMD drug trials were identified for comparison. Exposures: Age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, and DMD stage of patients receiving novel DMD treatment. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was health care costs and drug discontinuation as measured using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 223 routine care patients initiating novel DMD drugs (58 in MarketScan, 35 in CDM, and 130 in Medicaid) were identified. Among the 106 patients in the pivotal trials, the mean (SD) age was 8.5 (2.0) years (range, 4.0-13.0 years), which was younger than the mean age of patients in routine care (MarketScan: 13.7 [7.0] years [range, 1.8-33.3 years; P < .001]; CDM: 11.9 [5.7] years [range, 0.6-23.6 years; P < .001]; Medicaid: 13.4 [6.5] years [range, 1.8-46.1 years; P < .001]). The proportion of female patients identified in postapproval clinical settings was 2.9% (n = 1) in CDM (vs 34 male patients [97.1%]) and 1.5% (n = 2) in Medicaid (vs 128 male patients [98.5%]), which was not different from the pivotal trials. While nearly all patients in the pivotal trials had DMD disease stage 1 or 2 when initiating the DMD treatments (103 [97.2%]), in the postapproval clinical setting, slightly more than one-third of patients were in disease stage 3 or 4 (MarketScan, 17 [36.2%; P < .001]; CDM, 13 [41.9%; P < .001]; Medicaid, 54 [47.0%; P < .001]). The payer's cost for novel DMD treatments varied across the databases, with a mean (SD) of $634 764 ($607 101) in MarketScan, $482 749 ($582 350) in CDM, and $384 023 ($1 165 730) in Medicaid. Approximately one-third of routine care patients discontinued the treatments after approximately 7 months (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.4], 6.9 [3.9], and 7.2 [4.3] months in MarketScan, CDM, and Medicaid, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings raise questions about the translation of DMD drug trial findings to routine care settings, with patients in routine care discontinuing the treatment within 1 year and payers incurring substantial expenses for these medications. More data are needed on whether these high costs are accompanied by corresponding clinical benefits.

Potential Medicare and Medicaid Savings on Anti-CD20 Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis.

This cross-sectional study compares price data for ocrelizumab and rituximab to estimate the savings to Medicare and Medicaid if rituximab were used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis instead of the higher-priced ocrelizumab.

The Regulatory Repercussions of Approving Muscular Dystrophy Medications on the Basis of Limited Evidence.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eteplirsen (Exondys 51) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in 2016 via its accelerated approval program on the basis of a study of 12 boys. After a contentious review process and a high-profile meeting of an external advisory committee, FDA leaders concluded that very small increases in treated patients' levels of dystrophin, a muscle protein, were reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The eteplirsen approval, which was followed by approvals of other drugs in the same class via the same pathway, has been controversial because of the questionable evidence underlying these decisions, delays in mandated postapproval testing, and high U.S. prices. Questions remain about the effectiveness and long-term safety of these products. Although the FDA initially set a November 2020 deadline for eteplirsen's manufacturer to complete a clinical trial determining whether the drug has clinical benefit, the company will not complete the trial until 2024 or later. The relationship between levels of truncated dystrophin, the muscle protein studied in eteplirsen's pivotal trial, and clinical outcomes remains uncertain. Despite recent legislative and regulatory changes to the FDA's accelerated approval pathway, the history of eteplirsen and similar drugs points to the need for additional reforms to better balance evidence generation with patient safety and access to promising medications. Lawmakers and regulators should take further action to limit excessive spending on unproven therapies and ensure that drug sponsors conduct robust and timely confirmatory trials after receiving accelerated approval.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Generic Versus Brand-Name Fluticasone-Salmeterol to Treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first generic maintenance inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The inhaler, Wixela Inhub (fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris), is a substitutable version of the dry powder inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline). When approving complex generic products like inhalers, the FDA applies a special "weight-of-evidence" approach. In this case, manufacturers were required to perform a randomized controlled trial in patients with asthma but not COPD, although the product received approval for both indications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of generic (Wixela Inhub) and brand-name (Advair Diskus) fluticasone-salmeterol among patients with COPD treated in routine care. DESIGN: A 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. SETTING: A large, longitudinal health care database. PATIENTS: Adults older than 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (effectiveness outcome) and incidence of first pneumonia hospitalization (safety outcome) in the 365 days after cohort entry. RESULTS: Among 45 369 patients (27 305 Advair Diskus users and 18 064 Wixela Inhub users), 10 012 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with Advair Diskus use, Wixela Inhub use was associated with a nearly identical incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04]) and first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.15]). LIMITATIONS: Follow-up times were short, reflecting real-world clinical practice. The possibility of residual confounding cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: Use of generic and brand-name fluticasone-salmeterol was associated with similar outcomes among patients with COPD treated in routine practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Federal Funding For Discovery And Development Of Costly HIV Drugs Was Far More Than Previously Estimated.

In July 2012, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC, brand name Truvada) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent HIV infection. To estimate the extent of the US government's direct financial contribution to the discovery and development of Truvada, we identified National Institutes of Health awards using FDA documents, peer-reviewed literature, patent records, court filings, and other publicly available materials. We classified seventy-three federal government awards to eleven researchers as being directly linked to the development and clinical testing of Truvada for prevention therapy, through which the US government spent an estimated $143 million. The substantial public funding raises questions about the high price charged by the drug's manufacturer, which reduced its affordability and limited its accessibility as HIV preventive therapy.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations and Pneumonia Hospitalizations Among New Users of Combination Maintenance Inhalers.

Importance: Clinical guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend inhalers containing long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs) over inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs. However, data from randomized clinical trials comparing these combination inhalers (LAMA-LABAs vs ICS-LABAs) have been conflicting and raised concerns of generalizability. Objective: To assess whether LAMA-LABA therapy is associated with reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with ICS-LABA therapy in routine clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study using Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart, a large commercial insurance-claims database. Patients must have had a diagnosis of COPD and filled a new prescription for a combination LAMA-LABA or ICS-LABA inhaler between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Patients younger than 40 years were excluded, as were those with a prior diagnosis of asthma. The current analysis was performed from February 2021 to March 2023. Exposures: Combination LAMA-LABA inhalers (aclidinium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-indacaterol, tiotropium-olodaterol, or umeclidinium-vilanterol) and combination ICS-LABA inhalers (budesonide-formoterol, fluticasone-salmeterol, fluticasone-vilanterol, or mometasone-formoterol). Main Outcome: The primary effectiveness outcome was first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and the primary safety outcome was first pneumonia hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate propensity scores. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models stratified on matched pairs. Results: Among 137 833 patients (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [9.9] years; 69 530 [50.4%] female) (107 004 new ICS-LABA users and 30 829 new LAMA-LABA users), 30 216 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with ICS-LABA use, LAMA-LABA use was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). These findings were robust across a range of prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In this cohort study, LAMA-LABA therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with ICS-LABA therapy, suggesting that LAMA-LABA therapy should be preferred for patients with COPD.

US public investment in development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate US public investment in the development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Publicly funded science from January 1985 to March 2022. DATA SOURCES: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Report Portfolio Online Reporting Tool Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) and other public databases. Government funded grants were scored as directly, indirectly, or not likely related to four key innovations underlying mRNA covid-19 vaccines-lipid nanoparticle, mRNA synthesis or modification, prefusion spike protein structure, and mRNA vaccine biotechnology-on the basis of principal investigator, project title, and abstract. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Direct public investment in research and vaccine development, stratified by the rationale, government funding agency, and pre-pandemic (1985-2019) versus pandemic (1 January 2020 to 31 March 2022). RESULTS: 34 NIH funded research grants that were directly related to mRNA covid-19 vaccines were identified. These grants combined with other identified US government grants and contracts totaled $31.9bn (£26.3bn; €29.7bn), of which $337m was invested pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic, the NIH invested $116m (35%) in basic and translational science related to mRNA vaccine technology, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) ($148m; 44%) and the Department of Defense ($72m; 21%) invested in vaccine development. After the pandemic started, $29.2bn (92%) of US public funds purchased vaccines, $2.2bn (7%) supported clinical trials, and $108m (<1%) supported manufacturing plus basic and translational science. CONCLUSIONS: The US government invested at least $31.9bn to develop, produce, and purchase mRNA covid-19 vaccines, including sizeable investments in the three decades before the pandemic through March 2022. These public investments translated into millions of lives saved and were crucial in developing the mRNA vaccine technology that also has the potential to tackle future pandemics and to treat diseases beyond covid-19. To maximize overall health impact, policy makers should ensure equitable global access to publicly funded health technologies.

Variation in Use of Lung Cancer Targeted Therapies Across State Medicaid Programs, 2020-2021.

Importance: Targeted therapies for EGFR (OMIM 131550)- and ALK (OMIM 105590)-altered metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) substantially improve outcomes for some patients. However, use of these therapies is lower among Medicaid patients, and access to oncology care varies across state Medicaid programs. Evidence is lacking on how use of targeted therapies for metastatic NSCLC varies across state Medicaid programs. Objectives: To characterize state-level variation in the use of targeted therapies among Medicaid patients with metastatic NSCLC and to describe factors associated with this variation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the Medicaid Drug Utilization Database from 2020 and 2021 and peer-reviewed data on NSCLC incidence, the prevalence of EGFR and ALK alterations, and expected treatment durations to estimate expected use of targeted therapies for EGFR- and ALK-altered NSCLC in 33 states. Exposures: State-specific Medicaid programs and state policies and characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the estimated proportion of person-time of Medicaid patients with EGFR- or ALK-altered NSCLC associated with receipt of targeted therapy in each state Medicaid program. Nested linear regression models examined associations between the observed variation and state policies and characteristics. Results: There were an estimated 3461 person-years in which EGFR- and ALK-targeted therapies were indicated in 2020 and 2021. During these years, only 2281 person-years of EGFR- and ALK-targeted therapies were dispensed to Medicaid patients, suggesting that an estimated 66% of Medicaid patients with EGFR- and ALK-altered metastatic disease received indicated targeted therapies across all states. Rates of targeted therapy use ranged from 18% in Arkansas to 113% in Massachusetts; 30 of 33 states (91%) had lower rates of targeted therapy use than expected. The observed variation across state Medicaid programs was associated with Medicaid policies, the density of oncologists, and state gross domestic product per capita. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that rates of targeted therapy use among Medicaid patients with EGFR- and ALK-altered NSCLC were lower than expected and varied across state Medicaid programs. State policies and characteristics were associated with the observed variation, indicating where interventions could improve access to treatment and outcomes for patients with NSCLC.

Variations in Use of Diabetes Drugs With Cardiovascular Benefits Among Medicaid Patients.

Importance: Cardiovascular death remains the leading cause of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). A better understanding of the current use and adoption of glucose-lowering drugs with cardiovascular benefit can inform state policies to ensure their appropriate use in patients with T2D. Objective: To characterize the use of glucose-lowering agents with known cardiovascular benefit over time and across states. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional pharmacoepidemiological study of Medicaid prescription rates of glucose-lowering agents with known cardiovascular benefit vs those with less well-established cardiovascular benefit was conducted between 2014 and 2019. In 50 states and the District of Columbia, the study focused on nonmetformin, noninsulin glucose-lowering drugs divided into 3 cohorts: (1) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, (2) glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor agonists, and (3) all other classes of glucose-lowering drugs. Data were analyzed from January 2014 to December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of days supplied of each cohort, use ratios between the aggregated days supplied of glucose-lowering agents with known cardiovascular benefit vs those with less well-established cardiovascular benefit, and the mean change in use ratios per quarter. Results: Across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the use ratio of glucose-lowering agents with known cardiovascular benefit ranged from 1.58 to 0.14 (mean [SD], 0.48 [0.27]) in 2019. A lower use ratio was seen in states with a higher prevalence of diabetes (ß = -0.049; 95% CI, -0.086 to -0.012; P = .01), a larger total population (ß = -0.013; 95% CI, -0.023 to -0.003; P = .01), a greater number of Medicaid enrollees (ß = -0.054; 95% CI, -0.096 to -0.014; P = .01), a greater proportion of people enrolled in Medicaid (ß = -0.018; 95% CI, -0.030 to -0.007; P = .002), and a greater proportion of Medicaid patients enrolled in managed care organizations (ß = -0.0032; 95% CI, -0.0051 to -0.0013; P = .002). Higher Medicaid expenditures per enrollee (ß = 0.047; 95% CI, 0.007 to 0.089; P = .03) were associated with a higher use ratio of these agents. The relative use of glucose-lowering agents with known cardiovascular benefit by Medicaid enrollees increased 7.4% per year from 2014 to 2019, with wide variations across state Medicaid programs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, glucose-lowering agents with cardiovascular benefit increased in use during the study period, but also demonstrated considerable variation among states in their relative use. Medicaid programs should try to clarify which factors may be contributing to relative underuse of these potentially life-saving drugs.

Fulfillment of Postmarket Commitments and Requirements for New Drugs Approved by the FDA, 2013-2016.

This cohort study used the Drugs@FDA database to identify new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and assess fulfillment of postmarket commitments and requirements.

Holding Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Executives Accountable as Responsible Corporate Officers.

Importance: When a drug or medical device company violates federal law, the government has a powerful tool to use: the Park doctrine. The aim of the doctrine is to protect patients from the harms of an unsafe or fraudulent medical marketplace by targeting the executives who run the companies that make revenues on these products while violating federal law, rather than have that risk borne by patients or impersonal corporate entities; however, public reports of drug and device company executives being prosecuted in Park doctrine cases are uncommon. Objective: To identify Park prosecutions and characterize their role in US Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement efforts related to misconduct in the drug and medical device industry. Evidence Review: A systematic search of Westlaw, Google Scholar, DOJ press releases, and the legal literature was conducted. Findings: Thirteen cases of executives from 6 drug and medical device companies prosecuted under the Park doctrine since 2000 were identified. The prosecutions resulted in 11 guilty pleas and 2 jury trials, leading to 2 convictions. Of the 6 companies, 3 were drug manufacturers, 2 were medical device manufacturers, and 1 was a compounding pharmacy. All 3 drug manufacturers were opioid manufacturers, of which 2 executives were charged for unlawful promotion, and 1 was charged for manufacturing errors. Both device manufacturer executives were charged with unlawful promotion. All but 3 prosecutions alleged the defendants' complicity or personal involvement in the misconduct, which Park does not require. By contrast, most large settlements with the DOJ over alleged misconduct in the past 2 decades did not result in individual liability for executives. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the government has not exercised the full scope of its authority to prosecute corporate officials responsible for the illegal behavior of the drug and device companies they run. Enforcement under a reinvigorated Park doctrine could better promote the doctrine's goal of protecting patients.