Compliance with biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: do patient out-of-pocket payments matter?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures on adherence and persistence with biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An inception cohort of RA patients with pharmacy claims for etanercept or adalimumab during 2002-2004 was selected from an insurance claims database of self-insured employer health plans (n=2,285) in the US. Adherence was defined as medication possession ratio (MPR): the proportion of the 365 followup days covered by days supply. Persistence was determined using a survival analysis of therapy discontinuation during followup. Patient OOP cost was measured as the patient's coinsurance and copayments per week of therapy, and as the proportion of the total medication charges paid by the patient. Multivariate linear regression models of MPR and proportional hazards models of persistence were used to estimate the impact of cost, adjusting for insurance type and demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD OOP expenditures averaged $7.84+/-$14.15 per week. Most patients (92%) paid less than $20 OOP for therapy/week. The mean +/- SD MPR was 0.52+/-0.31. Adherence significantly decreased with increased weekly OOP (coeff= -0.0035, P<0.0001) and with a higher proportion of therapy costs paid by patients (coeff= -0.8794, P<0.0001), translating into approximately 1 week of therapy lost per $5.50 increase in weekly OOP. Patients whose weekly cost exceeded $50 were more likely to discontinue than patients with lower costs (hazard ratio 1.58, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Most patients pay less than $20/week for biologics, but a small number have high OOP expenses, associated with lower medication compliance. The adverse impact of high OOP costs on adherence, persistence, and outcomes must be considered when making decisions about increasing copayments.

Incidence of anaemia among HIV-infected patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of anaemia in patients treated with zidovudine (ZDV) with that in patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) not including ZDV. METHODS: Using HIV Insight, a database of abstracted US HIV care centre medical charts, ZDV-naïve patients starting ZDV-containing HAART were compared with those starting non-ZDV, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing HAART. Cohorts were divided as follows: group 1: without baseline anaemia [haemoglobin (Hb) >or=11 g/dL]; group 2: with baseline anaemia (Hb <11 g/dL). The incidence of anaemia (anaemia diagnosis, Hb <11 g/dL, erythropoietic therapy or blood transfusion) was computed for group 1. The anaemia hazard ratio (HR) was adjusted using Cox regression. The rate of worsening anaemia (Hb decrease >or=1.0 g/dL) was computed for group 2. RESULTS: In group 1, the incidence of anaemia was 24.3 and 8.1 per 100 person-years in the ZDV and non-ZDV cohorts, respectively, after 6 months of follow-up, and 12.5 and 5.3 per 100 person-years after 24 months. Significant predictors of anaemia were ZDV, low initial Hb, injecting drug use, CD4 count <200 cells/microL and AIDS. The adjusted HR for ZDV was 1.6 (P=0.005). In group 2, the ZDV/non-ZDV risk ratio for worsening anaemia was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.1-4.3). CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating ZDV-containing HAART are at greater risk of developing new anaemia or worsening anaemia than patients initiating non-ZDV-containing HAART.

Coprescribing and codispensing of cisapride and contraindicated drugs.

CONTEXT: Cisapride, an oral prokinetic drug indicated for the symptomatic treatment of nocturnal heartburn due to gastroesophageal reflux disease, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 1993. After reports of serious cardiac arrhythmias and deaths during administration of cisapride, most involving concomitant exposure to another drug, a series of label changes and warnings were issued in February 1995, October 1995, June 1998, and June 1999. Cisapride was removed from general distribution in July 2000. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of contraindicted coprescribing and codispensings, in which cisapride and a contraindicated drug were prescribed or dispensed to the same patient for overlapping periods, and the proportion of contraindicated coprescribing by the same physicians and codispensing by the same pharmacies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study of prescription claims from a managed care organization database for all patients with cisapride prescriptions between July 1993 and December 1998. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 38 757 adult and pediatric patients who had a cisapride prescription immediately preceded by at least 60 days of insurance eligibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of cisapride prescriptions or dispensing occurring during the same treatment period as a drug contraindicated at that time prescribed by the same physicians or dispensed by the same pharmacies. RESULTS: Of 131 485 cisapride prescriptions dispensed after the warnings began, 4414 (3.4%) overlapped with at least 1 drug contraindicated in the labeling at the time of the prescription. Of all overlapping prescription pairs, 2190 (50%) were by the same physicians, 3908 (89%) were by the same pharmacies, and 765 (17%) were dispensed on the same day. CONCLUSION: Prescriptions dispensed by the same pharmacies accounted for a far higher proportion of contraindicated medication pairs than prescriptions from the same physicians. The pharmacy may be an important and underutilized intervention point to prevent contraindicated drugs from being used together.