Respiratory syncytial virus knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions among adults in the United States.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality among older adults (aged ≥60 years) and adults with certain chronic conditions in the United States (US). Despite this burden, no previous studies have assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (KAP) of RSV among these populations. This study evaluates RSV-related KAP among US adults at increased risk of severe RSV infection. A cross-sectional, web-based survey was administered from May to June 2022 to better understand respiratory infection- and RSV-related KAP among US adults who are at risk of severe RSV infection. The survey included ≥200 adults in each of 4 subgroups: adults aged 60-89 years, and adults aged 18-59 years with ≥1 chronic cardiovascular condition, chronic pulmonary condition, or diabetes mellitus. Survey responses were analyzed descriptively overall and by subgroup, with exploratory logistic regression modeling used to evaluate characteristics associated with RSV awareness and concern. Among the 827 survey respondents, only 43.3% had ever heard of RSV (n = 358/827). The study identified key knowledge gaps (e.g. bacterial vs. viral nature of respiratory infections, RSV seasonality, common RSV symptoms, extent to which RSV causes respiratory infections in specific patient populations). Although 33.7% of RSV-aware adults (n = 120/356) reported being worried/very worried about RSV, 67.3% (n = 241/358) rarely consider RSV as a potential cause of their cold/flu-like symptoms. Results from this study highlight important knowledge gaps related to RSV, perceived risk, and severity of RSV. Findings can be used to support the development of tailored education efforts to support RSV prevention.

What is the context? Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of illness among older adults (60 years and older) and adults with certain chronic conditions in the United States (US), with some adults experiencing severe RSV outcomes such as hospitalization or death.Despite this considerable burden, the awareness of RSV among these at-risk populations has never been studied until now.What is new? We assessed RSV-related knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions among US adults at increased risk of severe RSV infection (adults aged 60­89 years and adults aged 18­59 years with ≥1 chronic cardiovascular condition, chronic pulmonary condition, or diabetes).Among older and at-risk adults, 43.3% had ever heard of RSV, with a lower awareness in the older adult subgroup.Among adults at increased risk of severe RSV who are aware of RSV, less than 35% consider themselves to be knowledgeable about RSV and 16­19% were unable to assess their perceived risk of contracting RSV or potential severity of RSV should they contract it.Knowledge gaps specific to RSV include the viral nature of RSV, its seasonality, symptoms, extent to which it causes respiratory infections in specific patient populations, the difficulty distinguishing RSV from other respiratory infections based on symptoms alone, and the limited testing for RSV in routine clinical practice.What is the impact? Two RSV vaccines were recently approved in the US and are recommended for the prevention of RSV among adults aged 60 years and older with shared clinical decision making.Results from this study reveal limited awareness of RSV among adults in the US at increased risk of severe RSV and knowledge gaps among those aware of RSV.These findings can be used by healthcare providers initiating shared clinical decision-making conversations with their patients aged 60 years and older who are eligible for RSV vaccination, as well as to tailor RSV disease awareness educational interventions to healthcare providers and patients.

HIV preexposure prophylaxis treatment patterns in a national health plan population.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence diminishes the benefits of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the 1.2 million Americans at risk for HIV exposure. OBJECTIVE: To describe HIV PrEP treatment patterns among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan and commercially insured beneficiaries. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients aged 16 to 89 years with at least 1 dispensing of emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate from July 2012, through December 2020, or emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide from October 2019 through December 2020, and who were continuously enrolled at least 12 months prior to and following the earliest PrEP claim. Outcomes were HIV PrEP adherence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) using 2 binary thresholds of 0.60 (4 doses/week) and 0.80 (5-6 doses/week) and duration of index treatment episode, total time on treatment, and total number of prescription fills. RESULTS: The study cohort of 707 (292 MAPD plan, 415 commercial) was predominantly made up of male patients (90.0%) and resided in the South (78.9%) with a mean age of 46.2 years (MAPD plan: 54.5, commercial: 40.4). Both populations engaged in high-risk sexual behavior (All: 18.7%, MAPD plan: 16.8%, commercial: 20.0%) and experienced sexually transmitted infections (All: 3.3%, MAPD plan: 2.1%, commercial: 4.1%). The mean index treatment episode length was 297.0 days (MAPD plan: 283.6, commercial: 306.5). Total time on treatment was 477.3 days (MAPD plan: 450.7, commercial 496.0). At 3 months, 84.9% (MAPD plan: 83.6%, commercial: 85.8%) and at 12 months, 58.7% (MAPD plan: 57.2, commercial: 59.8) of patients achieved a PDC of at least 0.80. At 3 months, 100.0% (MAPD plan: 100.0%, commercial: 100.0%), and at 12 months, 74.3% (MAPD plan: 70.2%, commercial: 76.9%) of patients achieved a PDC of at least 0.60. The cohort had a mean of 16.4 fills of 30 days (MAPD plan: 16.4, commercial: 16.3) supply. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity for clinical programs to focus on improving longer-term PrEP adherence among individuals at risk for HIV exposure.

Comparison of a second TNFi vs other biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD following an initial TNFi.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis may require treatment with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD). Often, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the initial b/tsDMARD. The TNFi may not be effective or may not be well tolerated, so patients will opt for a different TNFi or switch to a non-TNFi b/tsDMARD. No preference for a TNFi or non-TNFi has been established and guidelines are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness by comparing patients using a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi after initial use of TNFi based on treatment patterns and health care utilization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plan, Medicaid, and commercial plan claims data from Humana's Research Database (Louisville, KY). The first claim for TNFi or non-TNFi (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018) following earlier TNFi was the index date. Patients were required to have pre-index enrollment of 6 months and 12 months post-index along with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or psoriasis. During the 12-month follow-up, persistence to the index TNFi or non-TNFi was measured as continued therapy without a gap exceeding 45 days (81 days for intravenous infusions). Adherence was proportion of days covered at least 0.8. Addition of a nonbiologic DMARD or corticosteroid was also identified. Inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were observed. Inverse probability of treatment weights was used to balance cohorts. Logistic regression models were fit to TNFi vs non-TNFI on treatment and utilization measures. RESULTS: Of identified patients, 1,022 were indexed to a second TNFi and 1,024 were indexed to non-TNFi. Weighted cohorts were balanced, with mean age 56.5 vs 56.4 years, 70.5% vs 70.7% female sex, and 68.0% vs 67.9% MAPD plan. No differences were observed on persistence or adherence, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.91-1.20) and 1.04 (0.91-1.20), respectively. No differences were observed for changes in therapy via switching to another TNFi/non-TNFi (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.54-1.62), via nonbiologic DMARD addition (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.83-1.11), or corticosteroid addition (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.92-1.88). No differences were observed for hospitalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.99-1.37) or emergency department visits (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.89-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi. As a result, choice of TNFi or non-TNFi following an initial TNFi may be driven by relevant patient-specific considerations. At the population level, policies that prefer either TNFi or non-TNFi appear reasonable. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Humana Inc. Mr Racsa is an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc. Drs Asante and Bloomfield are employees of Humana Inc. Dr Schwab was an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc., and is now an employee of RTI Health Solutions. Dr Cornett was an employee of Humana Inc. and is now an employee of ImmunoGen Inc.

A real-world comparison of cardiovascular, medical and costs outcomes in new users of SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

AIMS: To compare SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, treatment persistence/discontinuation, healthcare utilization and costs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized medical and pharmacy claims to identify new SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist users from January 2015 to June 2017. A total of 5,507 patients were included in each treatment group after 1:1 propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare CV outcomes and treatment discontinuation. Healthcare utilization and costs were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: No differences in the primary composite CV outcome or secondary CV outcome were observed. Patients using GLP-1 agonists were more likely to discontinue treatment (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.21) and more likely to have an inpatient hospitalization (14.4% vs. 11.9%, P < 0.001) or emergency department visit (27.4% vs. 23.5%, P < 0.001) compared to patients on SGLT2 inhibitors. The average per-person per-month cost difference was +$179 for total cost (P < 0.001), +$70 for medical cost (P < 0.001) and +$108 for pharmacy cost (P < 0.001) for GLP-1 agonists compared to SGLT2 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in composite CV outcomes were not established. However, other findings that favored SGLT2 inhibitors should be weighed against the known risks associated with this therapeutic class.

Comparing Medical Utilization and Cost Outcomes in Oral Versus Injectable Immunotherapy Users with Chronic Inflammatory Joint and Skin Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis (PSO) are immune-mediated systemic, chronic inflammatory conditions. Moderate to severe disease is treated with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide. If a patient does not respond to these firstline treatments, then tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi immunotherapy agents are administered via infusion, injection, or taken orally. Although the effectiveness of established infusion, injection, and newer oral therapies are known, the relative effectiveness among the routes of administration is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare drug use, health care resource utilization, and costs among patients who are treatment-naive to oral immunotherapy and injectable biologic immunotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used claims data from a large U.S. health plan to identify new users of oral and injectable immunotherapy, diagnosed with a joint (RA or PsA), skin (PSO), or joint and skin condition from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017. The index date was the first claim for an oral or injectable medication. Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and commercial plan patients aged 19-89 years with continuous enrollment 6 months before and 12 months after the index date were included in the study. Outcomes were adjusted using propensity score by inverse probability of treatment weighting. Treatment discontinuation, switching, health care resource utilization, and costs were measured during the post-index period. RESULTS: Oral versus injectable users with joint (n = 458 vs. 3,875), skin (n = 265 vs. 951), or joint and skin (n = 171 vs. 805) conditions were identified. For drug utilization outcomes, no differences in discontinuation rates were observed between oral and injectable groups for any of the cohorts. However, those in skin and joint and skin cohorts had higher rates of switching to other immunotherapies in patients initiated on orals compared with injectables. Health care resource utilization outcomes were mixed. While mean outpatient and physician office visits were significantly higher in oral compared with injectable groups across all 3 cohorts, no differences were observed for inpatient stays. Total costs (medical plus pharmacy) were lower for oral groups across all 3 cohorts. Pharmacy costs were lower for oral groups, but medical costs were higher for oral groups across all 3 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first population-level study at a route-of-administration level, which compared switching, health care resource utilization, and costs across several conditions. Switching drugs was more likely in the oral group, which may indicate lower effectiveness or tolerability of oral immunotherapies relative to injectables. Health care resource utilization was higher in the oral group, but total costs were lower, which was likely driven by the lower costs of oral drugs. DISCLOSURES: This study was a Humana internal study, and all authors were at the time employees of Humana and used Humana resources. The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose that relate to the research described in this study. This study was presented as a podium and poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Comparison of Medication Therapy Management Services and Their Effects on Health Care Utilization and Medication Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management (MTM) programs are designed to improve clinical outcomes and enhance appropriate medication use. Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) and targeted medication reviews (TMRs) are 2 broad interventions defined within MTM services. While MTM services have been extensively researched, there are few comparisons of CMR versus non-CMR interventions. Given the variability in MTM interventions and lack of a consistent TMR definition in the literature, this study sought to compare CMRs and TMRs that were clearly defined based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) criteria. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare acute inpatient admissions and emergency department (ED) visits between patients participating in MTM services (CMR, TMR, or both) and eligible nonparticipating patients and (b) examine the effect of receiving TMR services on medication adherence. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with Medicare Part D coverage who received MTM services and a 1:1 propensity score-matched control group. Participants had to be eligible for MTM services in 2014 or 2015 based on CMS requirements. CMRs were offered to all MTM-eligible patients, while TMRs were completed based on clinical rules that helped identify medication-related problems (MRPs). The date of MTM intervention, or eligibility for the control group, was considered the index date. Participants had to be continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan that included prescription drug coverage during the study period and have at least 6 months of data before and after the index date. Medical and pharmacy claims were assessed to examine trend-adjusted inpatient admissions and ED visits from pre-index to post-index date for participants and matched controls. RESULTS: In 2014 and 2015, receipt of TMR interventions was associated with statistically significant reductions in acute inpatient admissions. In 2014, there were 55.2 fewer admits per 1,000 individuals (95% CI = 29-81) and 30.8 fewer admits per 1,000 individuals in 2015 (95% CI = 20-42). Receipt of CMR-only interventions was associated with fewer acute inpatient admissions only when coupled with preidentification of MRPs (36.8 [95% CI = 25-49] fewer admits per 1,000 individuals). In 2015, there were significant reductions in ED visits for participants receiving TMR-only interventions or TMR/CMR interventions (26.1 [95% CI = 11-41] and 12.0 [95% CI = 1-23] fewer ED visits per 1,000 individuals, respectively). In both years, a larger percentage (0.4% for oral diabetes medications; 7.7% for antihypertensives; 3.0% for statins) of MTM participants had greater improvements in medication adherence in the post-index period compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving MTM services targeted at resolution of MRPs (TMR or CMR/TMR) resulted in positive reductions in health care utilization and increases in medication adherence. Given the importance of optimal medication utilization, this study highlights the need for additional focus on resolution of MRPs through TMRs and CMRs that can support improved clinical outcomes. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Researchers completed the work as part of their employment with Humana. All authors are or were employees of Humana at the time of the study. There are no other conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was previously presented at AMCP Nexus 2017 on October 16, 2017, in Dallas, TX.

A Retrospective Database Study Comparing Diabetes-Related Medication Adherence and Health Outcomes for Mail-Order Versus Community Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to oral antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) is important for managing blood glucose levels and avoiding hospitalizations or diabetes complications. Previous studies have found that use of mail-order pharmacy dispensing channels results in greater adherence than use of community pharmacies, but the link between use of mail-order pharmacies and improved clinical outcomes has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of mail-order and community pharmacy use on adherence to oral AHAs, hemoglobin A1c (A1c) level, and glycemic control, as well as emergency department (ED) and inpatient hospital use. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of administrative claims data from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2016, included patients with Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan coverage with ≥ 2 claims for the same oral AHA and a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients were indexed to the start of the most advanced oral AHA identified to begin study observations at the start of a new treatment and assigned to mail-order or community pharmacy cohorts based on which channel dispensed ≥ 80% of their oral AHA claims; all others were excluded. Mail-order and community pharmacy patients were 1:1 propensity score matched. Matched cohorts were compared on proportion of days covered (PDC), adherence (PDC ≥ 0.8), A1c level, glycemic control, and ED and inpatient use for measurement periods of 12, 24, 36, and 48 months post-index. RESULTS: 19,307 mail-order and 19,307 community pharmacy users were matched. PDC was higher for mail-order pharmacy users at 12 months (0.93 vs. 0.82, P < 0.001) and sustainable through 48 months (0.87 vs. 0.77, P < 0.001). Adherence was also greater for mail-order pharmacy patients through 12 months (86% vs. 68%, P < 0.001) and sustainable through 48 months (78% vs. 62%, P < 0.001). Glycemic control as A1c < 7% was not significantly different, but control as A1c < 8% was greater for mail-order pharmacy users at 12 months (91% vs. 89%, P = 0.006) and was greater through 36 months (93% vs. 89%, P = 0.043). Effects on A1c level were not evident. Mail-order pharmacy users were less likely to have an ED visit within 12 months (26% vs. 28%, P < 0.0001), and the difference was observed through 36 months (50% vs. 54%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, fewer mail-order pharmacy users had an inpatient hospitalization within 12 months (17% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001), and the difference was observed through 48 months (43% vs. 47%, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrate a benefit to patients who use mail-order pharmacies for chronic medications to treat T2DM. The study identified greater glycemic control, lower ED use, and lower hospitalization among individuals using mail-order pharmacies. These positive outcomes were evident in the near term and sustained over time. DISCLOSURES: This study received no outside funding but was sponsored by Humana through regular employment activities by Schwab, Racsa, and Worley, who are employed by Humana Healthcare Research (formerly Comprehensive Health Insights). This study found benefits related to using mail-order versus community pharmacies for dispensing antihyperglycemic agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Humana owns mail-order pharmacies under the Humana Pharmacy subsidiary. Mourer and Meah are paid employees of Humana Pharmacy Solutions. Rascati is employed by the University of Texas College of Pharmacy at Austin.

Factors Related to the Use of Topical vs. Oral NSAIDs for Sprains, Strains, and Contusions in a Senior Population: A Retrospective Analysis of Administrative Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Research to date on sprains, strains, and contusions has focused mainly on the analysis of sports-related injuries, occupational injuries, injuries resulting from automobile accidents, and severe injuries that result in inpatient hospital stays. Little is known about real-world acute sprains, strains, and contusions in an aging population. Patients may be treated with over-the-counter, oral, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute sprains, strains, and contusions or may require the use of prescription NSAIDs. For sprains, strains, and contusions treated with prescription NSAIDs, the choice of topical administration or oral administration likely depends on a number of factors such as age and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify factors associated with the use of a prescription topical NSAID or a prescription oral NSAID for the treatment of sprains, strains, and contusions among patients aged 65-89 years enrolled in the Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug plan. METHODS: The study sample was selected from the Humana Research Database (Louisville, KY, USA). Study subjects were identified as patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug plans, aged 65-89 years, having a medical claim with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification indicative of an acute sprain, strain, and contusion between 1 January, 2010 and 31 March, 2014 (identification period). The date of the first claim was considered the index date, and subjects were required to have 12 months of continuous enrollment before the index date and a minimum of 3 months continuous enrollment after the index date. Prescription NSAID use during the 3 months after the index sprain, strain, and contusion diagnosis was required for study inclusion and was identified based on a pharmacy claim for a topical or an oral NSAID. Patients with prescription NSAID use leading up to the sprains, strains, and contusions were excluded. Potential factors related to the use of a topical vs. oral NSAID were identified using stepwise logistic regression with backward elimination. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42,283 patients were prescribed an oral or topical NSAID (39,294 oral; 2989 topical) within 3 months of the index sprain, strain, and contusion diagnosis. After applying stepwise logistic regression, and retaining variables with statistically significant parameter estimates (p < 0.05), use of topical NSAIDs was higher among female individuals [odds ratio and 95% confidence interval = 1.34 (1.24-1.45)], and appeared to increase with age [odds ratio = 1.04 (1.04-1.05)]. Topical NSAID use was lower in the Midwest region [odds ratio = 0.85 (0.77-0.94)] in comparison to the Southern region. Clinical factors associated with topical NSAID use included Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score [odds ratio = 1.06 (1.04-1.09)], medication burden [odds ratio = 1.06 (1.04-1.08), pill burden [odds ratio = 1.02 (1.01-1.03), specific comorbid conditions, including site-specific osteoarthritis of the upper arm [odds ratio = 2.34 (1.19-4.60)], ankle/foot [odds ratio = 1.46 (1.14-1.87)], or lower leg [odds ratio = 1.21 (1.07-1.36)], myofascial pain [odds ratio = 1.31 (1.21-1.42)], gastrointestinal/hepatic disorders [odds ratio = 1.15 (1.05-1.25)], systemic/central pain [odds ratio = 1.12 (1.01-1.23)], and cataracts [odds ratio = 1.10 (1.02-1.20)]. Conversely, a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was related to use of an oral NSAID rather than a topical NSAID [odds ratio = 0.86 (0.78-0.94)]. Diagnosis of the index sprain, strain, and contusion in an emergency department instead of a physician's office was also associated with oral NSAID use [odds ratio = 0.42 (0.37-0.47)]. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were used less often than oral NSAIDs following a sprain, strain, or contusion. Age, medication burden, pill burden, evidence of gastrointestinal disorder, and evidence of certain pain-related conditions were significant factors associated with topical NSAID as opposed to oral NSAID use. In comparison to oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs were more likely to be prescribed in a physician's office than an emergency department, possibly because a patient's physician has a better understanding of the patient's concomitant medications and comorbidities. Although topical NSAIDs were more likely to be used than oral NSAIDs in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the use of oral NSAIDs among patients with gastrointestinal bleeding was substantial.

Adherence and economic impact of paliperidone palmitate versus oral atypical antipsychotics in a Medicare population.

Aim: To compare adherence, healthcare utilization and costs among real world, Medicare-eligible patients with schizophrenia using long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral atypical antipsychotics. Patients & methods: Historical cohort study used Medicare Advantage claims data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to adjust for baseline differences. 12-month adherence, healthcare utilization and costs were compared. Results: Patients using PP were more adherent (proportion of days covered ≥0.8; 48.1 vs 32.6%; p < 0.001), had lower odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.96) and lower medical costs ($11,095; 95% CI: $10,374-11,867 vs $15,551; 95% CI: $14,584-16,583), but higher pharmacy costs ($14,787; 95% CI: $14,117-15,488 vs $5781; 95% CI: $5530-6043). Conclusion: Compared with patients using oral atypical antipsychotics, PP had lower hospitalizations and medical costs with greater medication adherence accompanied by higher pharmacy costs.

A Comparison of Brand and Biosimilar Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors for Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Filgrastim-sndz, a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), was introduced as a biosimilar to filgrastim in 2015, but real-world comparative effectiveness for filgrastim versus filgrastim-sndz has not been reported to date. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia for patients taking filgrastim versus those taking filgrastim-sndz and (b) compare the incidence of a potential serious adverse event for filgrastim versus filgrastim-sndz. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients receiving a G-CSF following chemotherapy, using administrative claims from the Humana Research Database. Patients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan with a claim for a G-CSF from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, were identified. G-CSF use had to occur within 6 days of exposure to chemotherapy and without any subsequent chemotherapy within 14 days after G-CSF use. Febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization was defined as hospitalization within 14 days after G-CSF use with (a) diagnosis of infection and/or neutropenia (broad definition) or (b) infection and neutropenia diagnoses (narrow definition). Serious adverse drug events (spleen rupture, acute respiratory syndrome, serious allergic reactions, capillary leak syndrome, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, cutaneous vasculitis, or bones and muscle ache) were also identified within 14 days after G-CSF use. An incidence difference of < 1% with 90% CI crossing zero qualified as support for noninferiority. Two-tailed chi-square tests were also used to investigate differences. RESULTS: A total of 88 filgrastim and 101 filgrastim-sndz patients were identified. Filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz met the criteria for noninferiority based on an incidence difference of -0.6% (90% CI = -5.1%-4.0%; P = 0.84) for the broad definition of febrile neutropenia and a difference of -0.8% (90% CI = -3.8%-2.1%; P = 0.64) for the narrow definition. For the analysis of serious adverse events, an incidence difference of -2.5% (90% CI = -7.5%-2.5%; P = 0.42) for filgrastim compared with filgrastim-sndz was not sufficient to establish noninferiority. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first analyses of real-world evidence regarding the noninferiority of filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz. The study results support noninferiority of filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz for prevention of febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization. While noninferiority for serious adverse events was not supported, there was also no statistically significant difference between filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz. The study's small sample size could have limited the analysis of the relatively rare outcomes of febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization and serious adverse events. A study including a larger numbers of patients taking filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz could provide additional insights. DISCLOSURES: This study received no outside funding. Douglas, Kennedy, and Slabaugh were employees of Humana Pharmacy Solutions at the time the study was conducted. Bowe, Schwab, and Lane were employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, at the time the study was conducted. Study concept and design were contributed by Douglas, Kennedy, Schwab, and Lane, along with Slabaugh and Bowe. Bowe took the lead in data collection, assisted by Schwab, and data interpretation was performed by Schwab, along with the other authors. The manuscript was written by Schwab, Lane, and Douglas and revised by Kennedy, Slabaugh, and Bowe, along with Schwab, Lane, and Douglas.

Impact of comorbid conditions in COPD patients on health care resource utilization and costs in a predominantly Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often have multiple underlying comorbidities, which may lead to increased health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. OBJECTIVE: To describe the comorbidity profiles of COPD patients and examine the associations between the presence of comorbidities and HCRU or health care costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study utilizing data from a large US national health plan with a predominantly Medicare population was conducted. COPD patients aged 40-89 years and continuously enrolled for 12 months prior to and 24 months after the first COPD diagnosis during the period of January 01, 2009, through December 31, 2010, were selected. Eleven comorbidities of interest were identified 12 months prior through 12 months after COPD diagnosis. All-cause and COPD-related hospitalizations and costs were assessed 24 months after diagnosis, and the associations with comorbidities were determined using multivariate statistical models. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of 52,643 COPD patients identified had at least one of the 11 comorbidities. Congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery disease, and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) had the strongest associations with all-cause hospitalizations (mean ratio: 1.56, 1.32, and 1.30, respectively; P<0.0001); other comorbidities examined had moderate associations. CHF, anxiety, and sleep apnea had the strongest associations with COPD-related hospitalizations (mean ratio: 2.01, 1.32, and 1.21, respectively; P<0.0001); other comorbidities examined (except chronic kidney disease [CKD], obesity, and osteoarthritis) had moderate associations. All comorbidities assessed (except obesity and CKD) were associated with higher all-cause costs (mean ratio range: 1.07-1.54, P<0.0001). CHF, sleep apnea, anxiety, and osteoporosis were associated with higher COPD-related costs (mean ratio range: 1.08-1.67, P<0.0001), while CVA, CKD, obesity, osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes were associated with lower COPD-related costs. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that specific comorbidities among COPD patients add significant burden with higher HCRU and costs compared to patients without these comorbidities. Payers may use this information to develop tailored therapeutic interventions for improved management of patients with specific comorbidities.

Association between adherence to medications for COPD and medications for other chronic conditions in COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD often have multiple comorbidities requiring use of multiple medications, and adherence rates for maintenance COPD (mCOPD) medications are already known to be suboptimal. Presence of comorbidities in COPD patients, and use of medications used to treat those comorbidities (non-COPD medications), may have an adverse impact on adherence to mCOPD medications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the association between non-adherence to mCOPD medications and non-COPD medications in COPD patients. METHODS: COPD patients were identified using a large administrative claims database. Selected patients were 40-89 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months prior to and 24 months after the first identified COPD diagnosis (index date) during January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. Patients were required to have ≥1 prescription for a mCOPD medication within 365 days of the index date and ≥1 prescription for one of 12 non-COPD medication classes within ±30 days of the first COPD prescription. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]) was measured during 365 days following the first COPD prescription. The association between non-adherence (PDC <0.8) to mCOPD and non-adherence to non-COPD medications was determined using logistic regression, controlling for baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 14,117 patients, with a mean age of 69.9 years, met study criteria. Of these, 40.9% were males and 79.2% were non-adherent to mCOPD medications with a mean PDC of 0.47. Non-adherence to mCOPD medications was associated with non-adherence to 10 of 12 non-COPD medication classes (odds ratio 1.38-1.78, all P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Adherence to mCOPD medications is low. Non-adherence (or adherence) to mCOPD medications is positively related to non-adherence (or adherence) to non-COPD medications, implying that the need to take medications prescribed for comorbid conditions does not adversely impact adherence to mCOPD medications.

Glycemic Control Outcomes After Canagliflozin Initiation: Observations in a Medicare and Commercial Managed Care Population in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Although the efficacy of canagliflozin has been well established in clinical trials, research regarding its use and impact on outcomes in clinical practice has been limited by the availability of data on observations up to and beyond 6 months after the initial use of canagliflozin. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in glycemic control after the initiation of canagliflozin use in a managed care population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus was conducted using medical and pharmacy claims data and laboratory results from the Humana Research Database. The differences between hemoglobin (Hb) A1c levels pre- and postindex were assessed. Changes from pre- to postindex in the percentages of patients achieving glycemic control (eg, HbA1c <7% or <8%) were evaluated. HbA1c levels were also observed during days 31 to 90, 91 to 180, 181 to 270, and 271 to 360 postindex relative to preindex to assess the durability of HbA1c change over time. Analyses were conducted in the full cohort and in 3 subgroups: (1) HbA1c ≥7% at baseline; (2) age ≥65 years; (3) and Medicare members age ≥65 years and HbA1c ≥7% at baseline. FINDINGS: Among the 1562 patients meeting the study criteria, the mean HbA1c values pre- and postindex were 8.6% and 7.9%, respectively (P < 0.0001); in the subgroup with HbA1c ≥7% at baseline, these values were 8.9% and 8.0%; in the subgroup aged ≥65 years, 8.5% and 7.9%; and in the subgroup aged ≥65 years with HbA1c ≥7% at baseline, 8.8% and 8.1% (all subgroups, P < 0.001). The percentages of patients meeting glycemic-control thresholds (HbA1c <7%, <8%) were significantly greater at postindex in the full study cohort and in all 3 subgroups (all, P < 0.001). Based on longitudinal HbA1c results in the postindex periods, HbA1c reduction appeared durable across 12 months. IMPLICATIONS: The findings from this study suggest that treatment with canagliflozin is associated with improved glycemic control, as evidenced by HbA1c reduction and glycemic goal attainment. Even though not all patients had valid HbA1c measurements available in each quarter during the follow-up period, the reductions in mean HbA1c appeared durable across the postindex intervals. The observations from this majority Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug sample and, more specifically, in the subgroups limited to patients aged ≥65 years are particularly informative for payers and providers managing or caring for patients of this age with diabetes.

Use of Add-on Treatment to Metformin Monotherapy for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A U.S. Database Study.

BACKGROUND: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends metformin to treat individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and recommends that hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) be maintained below or around 7%. If the HbA1c target is not achieved or maintained by metformin monotherapy at maximal tolerated dose over 3 to 6 months, treatment modification with addition of a second oral antihyperglycemic agent or by initiating insulin is recommended. Despite the importance of attaining and maintaining HbA1c goals, actual treatment behavior may not follow ADA guidelines to add a second oral agent or to initiate insulin as expected even considering that individual patient's needs are taken into account when treatment decisions are made. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment addition for metformin monotherapy users with suboptimal glycemic control and associated factors. METHODS: A retrospective health care claims study identified 7,109 subjects aged 18 to 89 years, treated for type 2 diabetes with an HbA1c > 7% following at least 60 days of continuous metformin monotherapy. Subjects were required to have 12 months continuous enrollment with the health plan before and after the index lab date. Pharmacological treatment additions after the HbA1c lab result and time to treatment addition were evaluated. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the patient characteristics and comorbidities associated with the treatment addition. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of study subjects had evidence of addition of a second antidiabetic medication to primary metformin monotherapy, 57.5% remained on metformin monotherapy, and 4.5% discontinued metformin altogether. A logistic regression model found age inversely related to treatment addition: age 45-64 versus 18-44 (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.59-0.99) and age 65-89 versus 18-44 (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.43-0.74). HbA1c was positively related to treatment addition: > 8%-9% versus > 7%-8% (OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 2.00-2.67); > 9%-10% versus > 7%-8% (OR = 2.88, 95% CI = 2.32-3.58); and > 10% versus > 7%-8% (OR = 3.54, 95% CI = 2.92-4.28). Evidence of ophthalmic disorder was not related to treatment addition (P = 0.056), but evidence of hypertension (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.28-1.89); hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.05-1.55); other cardiovascular diseases (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.16-1.45); obesity (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08-1.36); and renal disease (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21-1.51) were associated. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the metformin monotherapy users with suboptimal glycemic control did not initiate add-on therapy as recommended by guidelines, and prolonged time on metformin monotherapy demonstrated clinical inertia in real-world clinical practice. Several factors were associated with this delay including older age, lower index HbA1c, and lack of evidence of certain comorbidities.

Early treatment revisions by addition or switch for type 2 diabetes: impact on glycemic control, diabetic complications, and healthcare costs.

BACKGROUND: The study examined the prevalence of early treatment revisions after glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) and estimated the impact of early treatment revisions on glycemic control, diabetic complications, and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of administrative claims data of plan members with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) was completed. Treatment revision was identified as treatment addition or switch. Glycemic control was measured as HbA1c during 6-12 months following the first qualifying HbA1c ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) laboratory result. Complications severity (via Diabetes Complication Severity Index (DCSI)) and costs were measured after 12, 24, and 36 months. Unadjusted comparisons and multivariable models were used to examine the relationship between early treatment revision (within 90 days of HbA1c) and outcomes after controlling for potentially confounding factors measured during a 12-month baseline period. RESULTS: 8463 participants were included with a mean baseline HbA1c of 10.2% (75 mmol/mol). Early treatment revision was associated with greater reduction in HbA1c at 6-12 months (-2.10% vs -1.87%; p<0.001). No significant relationship was observed between early treatment revision and DCSI at 12, 24, or 36 months (p=0.931, p=0.332, and p=0.418). Total costs, medical costs, and pharmacy costs at 12, 24, or 36 months were greater for the early treatment revision group compared with the delayed treatment revision group (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, treatment revision within 90 days of finding an HbA1c ≥9.0% is associated with a greater level of near-term glycemic control and higher cost. The impact on end points such as diabetic complications may not be realized over relatively short time frames.

Is response-guided therapy being applied in the clinical setting? The hepatitis C example.

BACKGROUND: Response-guided therapy (RGT) is a treatment model that bases adjustments to therapeutic regimens on individualized patient physiologic response. This approach is applied to patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who are treated with a triple therapy regimen of boceprevir or telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. As RGT expands in other pharmacologic regimens, including the treatment of breast cancer and acute myeloid leukemia, a measurement of how this approach is applied in clinical practice is important to determine whether the benefits of RGT are being optimized. OBJECTIVE: To measure adherence to the RGT guidelines and to the treatment futility rules based on the drug labeling information for boceprevir and for telaprevir in the treatment of patients with chronic HCV infection. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using the large Humana research database, which includes pharmacy, medical, and laboratory claims, as well as enrollment data for more than 1.5 million fully insured commercial members, 1.9 million Medicare Advantage members, and 2.4 million Medicare Part D members from all 50 states. The study population included patients aged ≥18 years to <90 years who were fully insured with commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage. A pharmacy claim for boceprevir or telaprevir was used to identify patients receiving triple therapy for HCV infection. Medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims were reviewed from the date of the first boceprevir or telaprevir pharmacy claim between May 2011 and February 2012 through a 32-week follow-up period, during which patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment eligibility. This time period allowed for the occurrences of required HCV RNA laboratory monitoring and the assessment of treatment patterns. The use of RGT for boceprevir and telaprevir includes the monitoring of HCV RNA levels at routine intervals to determine how to proceed with therapy. Adherence to HCV RNA monitoring was measured as the proportion of eligible patients who had an HCV RNA assay at each of the recommended time intervals. According to futility rules, patients with greater-than-expected HCV RNA levels are deemed to be nonresponders and should discontinue therapy. Adherence to futility rules was measured as the proportion of patients who stopped therapy among all patients who had an HCV RNA result, which indicated treatment futility at each monitoring interval. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients (65 in the boceprevir group; 261 in the telaprevir group) were eligible for the HCV RNA monitoring analysis, and 134 patients (20 receiving boceprevir and 114 receiving telaprevir) were eligible for the futility rules analysis. There were 1203 HCV RNA assays during the follow-up period. The percentage of patients who were adherent to HCV RNA monitoring during the entire treatment period was 29.2% in the boceprevir group and 32.2% in the telaprevir group. In both treatment groups, adherence to HCV RNA monitoring was highest at the first recommended time interval, followed by a downward trend in the second and third time intervals. Approximately 15% of 134 eligible patients met the futility rules for stopping therapy based on HCV RNA assay results, and 55% of those patients stopped the therapy in accordance with the treatment futility rules. CONCLUSION: The implementation of RGT was suboptimal in this population of patients with chronic HCV infection; adherence to HCV RNA monitoring guidelines was less than 33%, and adherence to treatment futility rules was less than 50%. Managed care pharmacists should identify strategies to increase the adoption of RGT, which may, in turn, improve patient care and reduce unnecessary expenditures.