Examining the National Representativeness of the Axon Registry: A Neurology-Specific Patient Registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the external validity of the Axon Registry by comparing the 2019 calendar year data with 2 nationally representative, publicly available data sources, specifically the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The Axon Registry is the American Academy of Neurology's neurology-focused qualified clinical data registry that reports and analyzes electronic health record data from participating US neurology providers. Its key function is to support quality improvement within ambulatory neurology practices while also promoting high-quality evidence-based care in clinical neurology. We compared demographics of patients who had an outpatient or office visit with a neurologist along with prevalence of selected neurologic conditions and neurologic procedures across the 3 data sets. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional, retrospective comparison of 3 data sets: NAMCS (2012-2016), MEPS (2013-2017, 2019), and Axon Registry (2019). We obtained patient demographics (age, birth sex, race, ethnicity), patient neurologic conditions (headache, epilepsy, cerebrovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, parkinsonism, dementia, spinal pain, and polyneuropathy), provider location, and neurologic procedures (neurology visits, MR/CT neuroimaging studies and EEG/EMG neurophysiologic studies). Parameter estimates from the pooled 5-year samples of the 2 public data sets, calculated at the visit level, were compared descriptively with those of the Axon Registry. We calculated Cohen h and performed Wald tests (α = 0.05) to conduct person-level statistical comparisons between MEPS 2019 and Axon Registry 2019 data. RESULTS: The Axon Registry recorded 1.3 M annual neurology visits (NAMCS, 11 M; MEPS, 22 M) and 645 K people with neurologic conditions (MEPS, 10 M). Compared with the pooled national surveys, the Axon Registry has similar patient demographics, neurologic condition prevalence, neuroimaging and neurophysiologic utilization, and provider location. In direct comparison with MEPS 2019, the Axon Registry 2019 had fewer children (2% vs 7%), more elderly persons (21% vs 16%), fewer non-Black and non-White race persons (5% vs 8%), less number of patients with epilepsy (10% vs 13%), more patients with dementia (8% vs 6%), more patients with cerebrovascular disease (11% vs 8%), and a greater predominance of neurology providers in the Midwest (25% vs 20%). The only difference with a non-negligible effect size was the proportion of people younger than 15 years (Cohen h = 0.25). DISCUSSION: The Axon Registry demonstrates high concordance with 2 nationally representative surveys. Recruiting more and diverse neurology providers will further improve the volume, representativeness, and value of the Axon Registry.

Measuring Ambulatory Racial and Ethnic Neurologic Disparities With the Axon Registry.

Background and Objectives: The primary objective is to examine potential racial and ethnic (R/E) disparities in ambulatory neurology quality measures within the American Academy of Neurology Axon Registry. R/E disparities in neurologic US morbidity and mortality have been clearly documented. Despite these findings, there have been no nationwide examinations of how ambulatory neurologic care affects these negative health outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective nonrandomized cohort study of patients in the AAN Axon Registry. The Axon Registry is a neurology-specific outpatient quality registry that collects, reports, and analyzes real-world deidentified electronic health record (EHR) data. Patients were included in the study if they contributed toward one of the selected quality measures for multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson disease, or headache during the study period of January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019. Descriptive analyses of patient demographics were performed and then stratified by race and ethnicity. Results: There were a total of 633,672 patients included in these analyses. Separate analyses were performed for race (64% White, 8% Black, 1% Asian, and 27% unknown) and ethnicity (52% not Hispanic, 5% Hispanic, and 43% unknown). The mean age ranged from 18 to 55 years, with 61% female and 39% male. Quality measures were chosen based on completeness of R/E data and were either process or outcomes focused. Statistically significant differences were noted after controlling for multiple comparisons. Discussion: The large proportion of missing or unknown R/E data and low overall rate of performance on these quality measures made the relevance of small differences difficult to determine. This analysis demonstrates the feasibility of using the Axon Registry to assess neurologic disparities in outpatient care. More education and training are required on the accurate capture of R/E data in the EHR.

Costs and Utilization of New-to-Market Neurologic Medications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the utilization and costs (total and out-of-pocket) of new-to-market neurologic medications with existing guideline-supported neurologic medications over time. METHODS: We used a healthcare pharmaceutical claims database (from 2001 to 2019) to identify patients with both a diagnosis of 1 of 11 separate neurologic conditions and either a new-to-market medication or an existing guideline-supported medication for that condition. Neurologic conditions included orthostatic hypotension, spinal muscular atrophy, Duchenne disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Huntington disease, tardive dyskinesia, transthyretin amyloidosis, and migraine. New-to-market medications were defined as all neurologic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2014 and 2018. In each year, we determined the median out-of-pocket and standardized total costs for a 30-day supply of each medication. We also measured the proportion of patients receiving new-to-market medications compared with all medications specific for the relevant condition. RESULTS: We found that the utilization of most new-to-market medications was small (<20% in all but 1 condition), compared with existing, guideline-supported medications. The out-of-pocket and standardized total costs were substantially larger for new-to-market medications. The median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply in 2019 were largest for edaravone ($712.8 [$59.8-$802.0]) and eculizumab ($91.1 [$3.0-$3,216.4]). For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs was highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications. DISCUSSION: Despite the increasing number of FDA-approved neurologic medications, utilization of newly approved medications in the privately insured population remains small. Given the high costs and similar efficacy for most of the new medications, limited utilization may be appropriate. However, for new medications with greater efficacy, future studies are needed to determine whether high costs are a barrier to utilization.