Real-World Effectiveness of Preventive Pharmacological Therapy in Patients With Urolithiasis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Data supporting the efficacy of preventive pharmacological therapy (PPT) to reduce urolithiasis recurrence are based on clinical trials with composite outcomes that incorporate imaging findings and have uncertain clinical significance. This study evaluated whether the use of PPT leads to fewer symptomatic stone events. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Medicare enrollees with urolithiasis who completed 24-hour urine collections that revealed hypercalciuria, hypocitraturia, low urine pH, or hyperuricosuria. EXPOSURE: PPT (thiazide diuretics for hypercalciuria, alkali for hypocitraturia or low urine pH, or uric acid lowering drugs for hyperuricosuria) categorized as (1) adherent to guideline-concordant PPT, (2) nonadherent to guideline-concordant PPT, or (3) untreated. OUTCOME: Symptomatic stone event occurrence (emergency department [ED] visit or hospitalization for urolithiasis or stone-directed surgery). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 13,942 patients, 31.0% were prescribed PPT. Compared with no treatment, concordant/adherent PPT use was associated with a significantly lower hazard of symptomatic stone events for patients with hypercalciuria (HR, 0.736 [95% CI, 0.593-0.915]) and low urine pH (HR, 0.804 [95% CI, 0.650-0.996]) but not for patients with hypocitraturia or hyperuricosuria. These associations were largely driven by significantly lower rates of ED visits after initiating PPT among the concordant/adherent group versus untreated patients. Patients with hypercalciuria had adjusted 2-year predicted probabilities of a visit of 3.8% [95% CI, 2.5%-5.2%%] and 6.9% [95% CI, 6.0%-7.7%] for the concordant/adherent PPT and no-treatment groups, respectively. Among patients with low urine pH, these probabilities were 4.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.7%) and 7.3% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.0%) for the concordant/adherent PPT and no-treatment groups, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Potential bias from the possibility that patients prescribed PPT had more severe disease than untreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with urolithiasis and hypercalciuria who were adherent to treatment with thiazide diuretics as well as those with low urine pH adherent to prescribed alkali therapy had fewer symptomatic stone events than untreated patients. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Despite multiple clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of thiazide diuretics and alkali for secondary prevention of kidney stones, they are infrequently prescribed due in part to a lack of data about their effectiveness in real-world settings. We analyzed medical claims from older adults with kidney stones for whom urine chemistry data were available. We found that patients who took prescribed thiazide diuretics for elevated urine calcium levels or alkali for low urinary pH were less likely to experience symptomatic stone recurrences than untreated patients. This benefit was expressed as lower rates of emergency department visits after initiating therapy. Our findings should inform the prescription of and adherence to treatment with thiazide diuretics and alkali for the prevention of recurrent kidney stones.

Preventive Pharmacological Therapy and Risk of Recurrent Urinary Stone Disease.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is a prevalent condition associated with a high recurrence risk. Preventive pharmacological therapy has been proposed to reduce recurrent stone episodes. However, limited evidence exists regarding its effectiveness, contributing to its underutilization by physicians. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preventive pharmacological therapy (thiazide diuretics, alkali therapy, and uric acid-lowering medications) and clinically significant urinary stone disease recurrence. METHODS: Using data from the Veterans Health Administration, adults with an index episode of urinary stone disease from 2012 through 2019 and at least one urinary abnormality (hypercalciuria, hypocitraturia, or hyperuricosuria) on 24-hour urine collection were included. The primary outcome was a composite variable representing recurrent stone events that resulted in emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or surgery for urinary stone disease. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to estimate the association between preventive pharmacological therapy use and recurrent urinary stone disease while adjusting for relevant baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among the cohort of patients with urinary abnormalities ( n =5637), treatment with preventive pharmacological therapy was associated with a significant 19% lower risk of recurrent urinary stone disease during the 12-36-month period after the initial urine collection (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.0496). However, the effectiveness of preventive pharmacological therapy diminished over longer follow-up periods (12-48 and 12-60 months after the urine collection) and did not reach statistical significance. When examining specific urinary abnormalities, only alkali therapy for hypocitraturia was associated with a significant 26% lower recurrence risk within the 12-36-month timeframe (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.97; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: When considering all urinary abnormalities together, this study demonstrates that the use of preventive pharmacological therapy is associated with a lower risk of clinically significant recurrent episodes of urinary stone disease in the 12-36 month timeframe after urine collection, although only the association with the use of alkali therapy for hypocitraturia was significant when individual abnormalities were examined.

National Trends in Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionary. Contemporary trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation. RESULTS: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%-8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality.

Understanding the Barriers to Preventive Pharmacological Therapy Use in Older Patients With Urinary Stone Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Despite compelling clinical trial evidence and professional society guideline recommendations, prescription rates of preventative pharmacological therapy (PPT) for urinary stone disease are low. We sought to understand how patient- and clinician-level factors contribute to the decision to prescribe PPT after an index stone event. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries with urinary stone disease who had a 24-hour urine collection processed by a central laboratory. Among the subset with a urine chemistry abnormality (ie, hypercalciuria, hypocitraturia, hyperuricosuria, or low urine pH), we determined whether PPT was prescribed within 6 months of their collection. After assigning patients to the clinicians who ordered their collection, we fit multilevel models to determine how much of the variation in PPT prescription was attributable to patient vs clinician factors. RESULTS: Of the 11,563 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 33.6% were prescribed PPT. There was nearly sevenfold variation between the treating clinician with the lowest prescription rate (11%) and the one with the highest (75%). Nineteen percent of this variation was attributable to clinician factors. After accounting for measured patient differences and clinician volume, patients had twice the odds of being prescribed PPT if they were treated by a nephrologist (odds ratio [OR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.79-2.57) or a primary care physician (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.58) compared to being treated by a urologist. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the type of clinician whom a patient sees for his stone care determines, to a large extent, whether PPT will be prescribed.

Association Between Urologist Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Performance and Quality of Prostate Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a study to evaluate the association between urologist performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and quality and spending for prostate cancer care. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were assigned to their primary urologist. Associated MIPS scores were identified and categorized based on thresholds for payment adjustment as low (worst), moderate, and high (best). Multivariable mixed effects models were used to measure the association between MIPS performance and adherence to quality measures and price standardized spending for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Adherence to quality measures did not vary across MIPS performance groups for pretreatment counselling by both a urologist and radiation oncologist (low-76%, [95% CI 73%-80%], moderate-77% [95% CI 74%-79%], and high-75% [95% CI 74%-76%]) and avoiding treatment in men with a high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (low-40% [95% CI 35%-45%], moderate-39% [95% CI 36%-43%], high-38% [95% CI 36%-39%]). Men on active surveillance managed by high performers more likely received a confirmatory test (44% [95% CI 43%-46%]) compared to those managed by moderate (38% [95% CI 33%-42%]) performers, but not low performers (36% [95% CI 29%-44%]). There was no difference in adjusted spending across MIPS performance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better performance in MIPS is associated with a higher rate of confirmatory testing in men initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer. However, performance was not associated with other dimensions of quality nor spending.

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]). CONCLUSIONS: How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

In-office dispensing of oral targeted agents by urology practices in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated. METHODS: We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race. RESULTS: New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race. CONCLUSION: Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.

Association between urology practice use of multiparametric MRI and genomic testing and treatment of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biomarkers for prostate cancer, such as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and tissue-based genomics, are increasingly used for treatment decision-making. Using biomarkers indiscriminately and thus ignoring competing risks of mortality may lead to treatment in some men who derive little clinical benefit. We assessed the relationship between urology practice use of biomarkers and subsequent treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% random sample of national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer diagnosed from 2015 through 2019. Urology practice-level use of biomarkers was characterized based on urology practice propensity to use either biomarker after diagnosis (never, below median, above the median). Noncancer mortality risk within 10 years of diagnosis was calculated for all men. Multilevel models were used to assess the relationship between practice-level biomarker use and treatment by noncancer mortality risk. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 1,764 (65%) urology practices used mpMRI and 897 (33%) used genomic testing for prostate cancer. Compared with urology practices never using each biomarker, those using mpMRI above the median (56% vs. 47%, P = 0.003) and tissue-based genomics below the median (56% vs. 50%, P = 0.03) were more likely to treat men with >75% risk of noncancer mortality. Additionally, compared with urology practices never using either biomarker, use of mpMRI (72% vs. 69%, P = 0.07) or tissue-based genomics (71% vs. 70%, P = 0.65) did not impact treatment in the healthiest group (i.e., those with <25% risk of noncancer mortality). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to practices that do not use each biomarker in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, urology practices using mpMRI, and tissue-based genomics to a lesser extent, are more likely to treat men at very high risk of dying from competing risks of mortality within 10 years of prostate cancer diagnosis.

Health care delivery system contributions to management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite clinical guidelines advocating for use of conservative management in specific clinical scenarios for men with prostate cancer, there continues to be tremendous variation in its uptake. This variation may be amplified among men with competing health risks, for whom treatment decisions are not straightforward. The degree to which characteristics of the health care delivery system explain this variation remains unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the association between use of treatment and health care delivery system determinants operating at the practice level, which included measures of financial incentives (i.e., radiation vault ownership), practice organization (i.e., single specialty vs. multispecialty groups), and the health care market (i.e., competition). Variance was partitioned to estimate the relative influence of patient and practice characteristics on the variation in use of treatment within strata of noncancer mortality risk groups. RESULTS: Among 62,507 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the largest variation in the use of treatment between practices was observed for men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (range of practice-level rates of treatment for high: 57%-71% and very high: 41%-61%). Addition of health care delivery system determinants measured at the practice level explained 13% and 15% of the variation in use of treatment among men with low and intermediate risk of noncancer mortality in 10 years, respectively. Conversely, these characteristics explained a larger share of the variation in use of treatment among men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (26% and 40%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Variation among urology practices in use of treatment was highest for men with high and very high-risk noncancer mortality. Practice characteristics explained a large share of this variation.

Practice Competition and Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urology practice market competition on use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective national cohort study of 48,067 Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2018. The primary exposure was urology practice-level market competition. Markets were established by the flow of patients to a practice using a variable radius approach. Practice level competition was measured annually using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The primary outcome was use of treatment for prostate cancer (ie, surgery, radiation, or cryotherapy) stratified by 10-year risk of noncancer mortality. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, there was a decrease in the total percent of urologists practicing in small single-specialty groups (49%-41%) with an increase in multispecialty practices (38%-47%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, a lower percentage of men underwent treatment in practices with low competition relative to those managed in practices with high competition (70% vs 67.0%, P < .001). Among men with the highest risk of noncancer mortality, those managed in practices in the least competitive markets were less likely to receive treatment relative to men managed by practices in the most competitive markets (48% vs 60%, P-value<.001). CONCLUSION: Reduction in competition between urology practices is not associated with greater use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, particularly in those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.

Potential for Urolithiasis-related Research Using the Novel Medicare-Litholink Database.

INTRODUCTION: To overcome the data availability hurdle of observational studies on urolithiasis, we linked claims data with 24-hour urine results from a large cohort of adults with urolithiasis. This database contains the sample size, clinical granularity, and long-term follow-up needed to study urolithiasis on a broad level. METHODS: We identified adults enrolled in Medicare with urolithiasis who had a 24-hour urine collection processed by Litholink (2011 to 2016). We created a linkage of their collections results and paid Medicare claims. We characterized them across a variety of sociodemographic and clinical factors. We measured frequencies of prescription fills for medications used to prevent stone recurrence, as well as frequencies of symptomatic stone events, among these patients. RESULTS: In total, there were 11,460 patients who performed 18,922 urine collections in the Medicare-Litholink cohort. The majority were male (57%), White (93.2%), and lived in a metropolitan county (51.5%). Results from their initial urine collections revealed abnormal pH to be the most common abnormality (77.2%), followed by low volume (63.8%), hypocitraturia (45.6%), hyperoxaluria (31.1%), hypercalciuria (28.4%), and hyperuricosuria (11.8%). Seventeen percent had prescription fills for alkali monotherapy, and 7.6% had prescription fills for thiazide diuretic monotherapy. Symptomatic stone events occurred in 23.1% at 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully linked Medicare claims with results from 24-hour urine collections performed by adults that were processed by Litholink. The resulting database is a unique resource for future studies on the clinical effectiveness of stone prevention strategies and urolithiasis more broadly.

Specialist Care, Metabolic Testing, and Testing Completeness Among U.S. Veterans with Urinary Stone Disease.

Purpose: Recent observational studies reporting a lack of benefit from 24-hour urine testing for urinary stone disease (USD) prevention assumed testing included all components recommended from clinical guidelines. We sought to assess the completeness of 24-hour urine testing in the VA population. Materials and methods: From the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (2012-2019), we identified patients with USD (n=198,621) and determined those who saw a urologist and/or nephrologist, and received 24-hour urine testing within 12 months of their index USD encounter. Through Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes, we evaluated each collection's completeness, defined as including all of urine volume, calcium, oxalate, citrate, uric acid, and creatinine. We then fit a multilevel logistic regression model with random effects for VHA facility to evaluate factors associated with specialist follow-up, testing, and testing completeness. Results: Specialist follow-up occurred in 54.3% and was stable over time. Testing occurred in 8.4%, declining from 9.3% in 2012 to 7.2% in 2019. Of tests performed, 54.6% were complete (43.7% increasing to 62.7% from 2012-2019). In adjusted analysis, there was high between-facility variation in specialist follow-up (median OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.7-2.0), testing (median OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.9-2.4), and testing completeness (median OR, 6.0, 95% CI 4.5-7.3). Individual facilities contributed 52% (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44-0.57) towards the observed variation in testing completeness. Conclusions: Approximately 1 in 12 U.S. Veterans with USD receive metabolic testing and half of these tests are complete. Addressing facility level variation in testing completeness may improve USD care.

Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Urology Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the implications of the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) for urology practices. MIPS is a Medicare payment model that determines whether a physician is financially penalized or receives bonus payment based on performance in four categories: quality, practice improvement, promotion of interoperability, and spending. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of urologist performance in MIPS for 2017 and 2019 using Medicare data. Urologist practice organization was categorized as single-specialty (small, medium, large) or multispecialty groups. MIPS scores were estimated by practice organization. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between urology practice characteristics, including proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries, and bonus payment adjustment as defined by Medicare methodology. Rates of consolidation (movement from smaller to larger practices) between 2017 and 2019 were compared between those who were and those who were not penalized in 2017. RESULTS: Urologists in small practices performed worse in MIPS and had a significantly lower adjusted odds ratio of receiving bonus payments in both 2017 and 2019 compared to larger group practices (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.03-0.05 in 2017 and OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.30-0.47 in 2019). Increasing percent of dual eligible beneficiaries within a patient panel was associated with decreased odds of receiving bonus payment in both performance years. Urologists penalized in 2017 had higher rates of consolidation by 2019 compared to those who were not (14% vs 5%, P <.05). CONCLUSION: Small urology practices and those caring for a higher proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries tended to perform worse in MIPS.

Physician Dispensing Among Urology Practices and the Use of Abiraterone or Enzalutamide for Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Urologists are increasingly prescribing oral targeted therapies to patients with advanced prostate cancer. Concurrent with this trend, urology practices are allowing patients to fill their prescription onsite or through a pharmacy established by the practice. We examined prescription patterns for abiraterone or enzalutamide between eventually dispensing single-specialty urology practices, nondispensing single-specialty urology practices, and multispecialty practices using a 20% random sample of the 2013-2017 national Medicare claims. We determined physician dispensing through manual search of publicly available information. From 2015 through 2017, higher percentages of patients managed by eventually dispensing single-specialty urology practices had a filled prescription of abiraterone or enzalutamide compared with patients managed in nondispensing single-specialty urology practices (eg, in 2017, 8.9%, 95% confidence interval = 7.3% to 10.9%, vs 5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 5.0% to 7.0%, respectively; 2-sided P < .001). Insofar as physician dispensing is associated with higher use of abiraterone or enzalutamide, it may represent a means to improve treatment access.

Risk of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Adverse Events With Abiraterone or Enzalutamide Among Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most common oral agents for the treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. To understand their safety profiles in real-world settings, we examined the association between the use of abiraterone or enzalutamide and the risk of metabolic or cardiovascular adverse events while on treatment. METHODS: Men with advanced prostate cancer and their use of abiraterone or enzalutamide were identified in a 20% sample of the 2010-2017 national Medicare claims. The primary composite outcome was the occurrence of a major metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an emergency room visit or hospitalization associated with a primary diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. The secondary composite outcome was the occurrence of a minor metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an outpatient visit associated with a primary diagnosis of the aforementioned conditions. Risks were assessed separately for abiraterone and enzalutamide using Cox regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Compared with men not receiving abiraterone, men receiving abiraterone were at increased risk of both a major composite adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 2.05; P < .001) and a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.47; P = .01). Compared with men not receiving enzalutamide, men receiving enzalutamide were at an increased risk of a major composite adverse event (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.48; P = .04) but not a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.30; P = .75). CONCLUSION: Careful monitoring and management of men on abiraterone or enzalutamide through team-based approaches are critical.

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists. METHODS: Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments. CONCLUSION: Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.

Characterizing Out-of-Pocket Payments and Financial Assistance for Patients Prescribed Abiraterone and Enzalutamide at an Academic Cancer Center Specialty Pharmacy.

PURPOSE: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are commonly used oral cancer therapies for patients with prostate cancer, both with potentially high out-of-pocket costs for patients. We investigated the prevalence of financial assistance mechanisms used to alleviate out-of-pocket costs and the association of these mechanisms with timing of treatment initiation of abiraterone or enzalutamide. METHODS: Using data from the medical center's specialty pharmacy, we identified first prescriptions for abiraterone or enzalutamide between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019. Prescriptions dispensed at an external pharmacy or that were discontinued for reasons unrelated to cost were excluded. Patient demographics, insurance coverage, out-of-pocket cost, and number of days between prescribed date and pill-to-mouth date were collected. RESULTS: Among 220 prescriptions in our final cohort, 185 were filled through our internal specialty pharmacy, 23 through a manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance program (PAP), and 12 were never filled because of cost. One third of the prescriptions in our final cohort (n = 66) were filled with financial assistance: PAP (10%), copay cards (9%), and grants (11%). The median amount of assistance received for the first fill was $2,860 US dollars (USD) (interquartile range $1,856-$10,717 USD). Prescriptions with an out-of-pocket cost < $100 USD were filled in the shortest time (median 5 days), whereas those filled through a PAP had the longest time to initiation (median 30.5 days). CONCLUSION: Among patients prescribed oral therapies for prostate cancer at a single institution, one third of patients received financial assistance. Although receiving assistance is likely to improve financial toxicity, waiting for assistance may lead to longer time to initiation of medication.

Understanding Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess how active surveillance for prostate cancer is apportioned across specialties and how testing patterns and transition to treatment vary by specialty. METHODS: We used a 20% national sample of Medicare claims to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 through 2016 initiating surveillance (N = 13,048). Patients were assigned to the physician responsible for the bulk of surveillance care based on billing patterns. Freedom from treatment was assessed by specialty of the responsible physician (urology, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and primary care). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine associations between specialty and treatment patterns. RESULTS: Urologists were responsible for surveillance in 93.7% of patients in 2010 and 96.2% of patients in 2016 (P for trend = .01). Testing patterns varied by specialty. For example, patients of medical oncologists had more frequent prostate-specific antigen testing compared with patients of urologists (1.85 v 2.39 tests per year, respectively; P < .01). Three years after diagnosis, a significantly smaller proportion of patients managed by radiation oncologists (64.3%) remained on surveillance compared with patients managed by other physicians (75.8%-79.5%; P < .01). Although radiation was the most common treatment among all men who transitioned to treatment, a disproportionate percentage of patients followed by radiation oncologists (28.9%) ultimately underwent radiation compared with patients followed by other physicians (15.1%-15.4%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Nontrivial percentages of patients on active surveillance are managed by physicians outside of urology. Given the interspecialty variations observed, efforts to strengthen the evidence underlying surveillance pathways and to engage other specialties in guideline development are needed.

Commercial Prices for Prostatectomy and Treatment among Younger, Privately Insured Men with Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Consensus is lacking about whether or how to treat men with prostate cancer, making it susceptible to nonclinical factors. The extent to which financial incentives afforded through differences in commercial prices for prostatectomy are associated with use of treatment, and prostatectomy in particular, is unknown. METHODS: MarketScan® data were used to identify 38,863 privately insured men aged 64 years or younger diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2010 and 2016. Commercial prices for prostatectomy, defined by professional payments to urologists, were aggregated to the market level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the association of commercial prices for prostatectomy and the use of treatment. RESULTS: The adjusted use of treatment decreased from 87.1% for men diagnosed in 2010 to 71.1% for those diagnosed in 2016 (p <0.01 for trend). Among the treated, prostatectomy was the most common modality every year (eg 71.1% for those diagnosed in 2016). For every $1,000 increase in commercial prices, the adjusted odds of undergoing treatment decreased by 7% (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p <0.01). Among the treated, commercial prices were not significantly associated with use of prostatectomy (OR 0.99 for every $1,000 increase, 95% CI 0.89-1.10, p=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Higher commercial prices for prostatectomy were associated with decreased use of treatment. The use of prostatectomy was not associated with its commercial prices.