Evaluation of VTE, MACE, and Serious Infections Among Patients with RA Treated with Baricitinib Compared to TNFi: A Multi-Database Study of Patients in Routine Care Using Disease Registries and Claims Databases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to evaluate baricitinib safety with respect to venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and serious infection relative to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients with RA from 14 real-world data sources (three disease registries, eight commercial and three government health insurance claims databases) in the United States (n = 9), Europe (n = 3), and Japan (n = 2) were analyzed using a new user active comparator design. Propensity score matching (1:1) controlled for potential confounding. Meta-analysis of incidence rate ratios (IRR) and incidence rate differences (IRD) for each outcome, from each data source was executed using modified Poisson regression and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis. RESULTS: Of 9013 eligible baricitinib-treated patients, 7606 were propensity score-matched with TNFi-treated patients, contributing 5879 and 6512 person-years of baricitinib and TNFi exposure, respectively. Across data sources, 97 patients (56 baricitinib) experienced VTE during follow-up, 93 experienced MACE (54 baricitinib), and 321 experienced serious infection (176 baricitinib). Overall IRRs comparing baricitinib with TNFi treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.10, 2.08) for VTE, 1.54 (95% CI 0.93, 2.54) for MACE, and 1.36 (95% CI 0.86, 2.13) for serious infection. IRDs for VTE, MACE, and serious infection, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI -0.04, 0.57), 0.22 (95% CI -0.07, 0.52), and 0.57 (95% CI -0.07, 1.21) per 100 person-years greater for baricitinib than TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results suggest increased risk of VTE with baricitinib versus TNFi, with consistent point estimates from the two largest data sources. A numerically greater risk was observed for MACE and serious infection when comparing baricitinib versus TNFi, with different point estimates from the two largest data sources. Findings from this study and their impact on clinical practice should be considered in context of limitations and other evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of baricitinib and other Janus kinase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS Register ( http://encepp.eu ), identifier #32271.

The price paradox of biosimilar-like long-acting insulin.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the uptake and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of Basaglar, the first long-acting insulin biosimilar, in a commercially insured population in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of commercial pharmacy claims and pharmacy co-payment offsets. METHODS: We assessed Basaglar uptake by examining trends in the composition of the long-acting insulin market in the United States from 2014 to 2018. As patient demographics and plan type may be important determinants of biosimilar uptake, we also assessed characteristics of all long-acting insulin users by drug. We examined Basaglar OOP costs by assessing mean OOP costs per claim for users of Basaglar and other long-acting insulins, overall and by plan type, and the number and source of co-payment offsets for Basaglar and other insulin glargine products from Basaglar market entry through 2018. We used multivariate linear models to examine the relationship between Basaglar OOP expenditures and insurer-negotiated amounts, overall and by plan type. RESULTS: Basaglar experienced a rapid uptake. However, there was no evidence that Basaglar users had lower OOP costs than reference product (Lantus) users. CONCLUSIONS: Given our results and the approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar, we recommend the empirical evaluation of biosimilar cost savings to patients and insurers prior to promoting their automatic substitution.

Long-term use of immunosuppressive medicines and in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes: a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals take long-term immunosuppressive medications. We evaluated whether these individuals have worse outcomes when hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with non-immunosuppressed individuals. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), the largest longitudinal electronic health record repository of patients in hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in the USA, between Jan 1, 2020, and June 11, 2021, within 42 health systems. We compared adults with immunosuppressive medications used before admission to adults without long-term immunosuppression. We considered immunosuppression overall, as well as by 15 classes of medication and three broad indications for immunosuppressive medicines. We used Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation, with the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate HRs for in-hospital death. Models were adjusted using doubly robust propensity score methodology. FINDINGS: Among 231 830 potentially eligible adults in the N3C repository who were admitted to hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 during the study period, 222 575 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 59 years [SD 19]; 111 269 [50%] male). The most common comorbidities were diabetes (23%), pulmonary disease (17%), and renal disease (13%). 16 494 (7%) patients had long-term immunosuppression with medications for diverse conditions, including rheumatological disease (33%), solid organ transplant (26%), or cancer (22%). In the propensity score matched cohort (including 12 841 immunosuppressed patients and 29 386 non-immunosuppressed patients), immunosuppression was associated with a reduced risk of invasive ventilation (HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·83-0·96) and there was no overall association between long-term immunosuppression and the risk of in-hospital death. None of the 15 medication classes examined were associated with an increased risk of invasive mechanical ventilation. Although there was no statistically significant association between most drugs and in-hospital death, increases were found with rituximab for rheumatological disease (1·72, 1·10-2·69) and for cancer (2·57, 1·86-3·56). Results were generally consistent across subgroup analyses that considered race and ethnicity or sex, as well as across sensitivity analyses that varied exposure, covariate, and outcome definitions. INTERPRETATION: Among this cohort, with the exception of rituximab, there was no increased risk of mechanical ventilation or in-hospital death for the rheumatological, antineoplastic, or antimetabolite therapies examined. FUNDING: None.

Use of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and Dexamethasone Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the United States : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To use the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large, multicenter, longitudinal cohort, to characterize the use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone, overall as well as across individuals, health systems, and time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 43 health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 137 870 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 137 870 persons hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, 8754 (6.3%) received hydroxychloroquine, 29 272 (21.2%) remdesivir, and 53 909 (39.1%) dexamethasone during the study period. Since the release of results from the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial in mid-June, approximately 78% to 84% of people who have had invasive mechanical ventilation have received dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased during March 2020, peaking at 42%, and started declining by April 2020. By contrast, remdesivir and dexamethasone use gradually increased over the study period. Dexamethasone and remdesivir use varied substantially across health centers (intraclass correlation coefficient, 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir). LIMITATION: Because most N3C data contributors are academic medical centers, findings may not reflect the experience of community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone, an evidence-based treatment of COVID-19, may be underused among persons who are mechanically ventilated. The use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varied across health systems, suggesting variation in patient case mix, drug access, treatment protocols, and quality of care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institute on Aging.

Characteristics of Copayment Offsets for Prescription Drugs in the United States.

Importance: Despite ongoing debate regarding the high prices that patients pay for prescription drugs, to our knowledge, little is known regarding the use of coupons, vouchers, and other types of copayment "offsets" that reduce patients' out-of-pocket drug spending. Although offsets reduce patients' immediate cost burden, they may encourage the use of higher-cost products and diminish health insurers' ability to optimize pharmaceutical value. Objective: To examine the drugs most commonly covered by offsets, the percentage of out-of-pocket costs covered by offsets, and the characteristics of patients using offsets for retail pharmacy transactions in the United States in 2017 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of a 5% nationally random sample of anonymized pharmacy claims from IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer, which captures more than 60% of all US pharmacy transactions. This analysis focused on 631 249 individuals who used at least 1 offset between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Offset source, types of drugs covered by offsets, offset dollar value and percentage of out-of-pocket payment covered, and county characteristics of offset recipients. Results: The 631 249 individuals in the study (361 855 female participants [57.3%]; mean [SD] age, 45.7 [18.6] years) had approximately 33 million prescription fills, of which 12.8% had an offset used. Of these, 50.2% originated from a pharmaceutical manufacturer, 47.2% originated from a pharmacy or pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), and 2.6% originated from a state assistance program. A total of 80.0% of manufacturer-sponsored offsets were concentrated among 6.2% of unique products, and 79.9% of pharmacy-PBM offsets were concentrated among 4.9% of unique products. Most manufacturer offsets (88.2%) were for branded products, while most pharmacy-PBM offsets were for generic products (90.5%). The median manufacturer offset was $51.00, covering 87.1% of out-of-pocket costs; the median pharmacy-PBM offset was $16.30, covering 39.3% of out-of-pocket costs. There was no meaningful association between offset magnitude and county-level income, health insurance coverage, or race/ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of patient-level pharmacy claims from 2017 to 2019, approximately half of all offsets involved pharmacy-PBM contractual arrangements, and half were offered by manufacturers. All offsets were associated with a significant reduction in patients' out-of-pocket costs, were highly concentrated among a few drugs, and were generally not more generous among individuals in counties with lower income or larger Black or uninsured populations.

Fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the illicit stimulant supply: Results from U.S. drug seizure data, 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND: U.S. research examining the illicit drug supply remains rare even though the information could help reduce overdoses. Relatively little is known regarding how often opioids are found in stimulants and whether temporal and geographic trends exist. We examined trends in fentanyl-cocaine and fentanyl-methamphetamine combinations in the national illicit drug supply. METHODS: We analysed serial cross-sectional data from the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) collected between January 2011 and December 2016. We restricted the analysis to cocaine (N = 1,389,968) and methamphetamine (n = 1,407,474) samples and calculated proportions containing fentanyl (including 23 related analogs) over time. RESULTS: The combined presence of fentanyl and cocaine steadily increased nationally between 2012-2016 (p = 0.01), and the number of such samples tripled from 2015 to 2016 (n = 423 to n = 1,325). Similarly, the combined presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine increased 179 % from 2015 to 2016 (n = 82-n = 272). Patterns varied widely by state; in 2016, fentanyl-cocaine samples were most common in New Hampshire (7.2 %), Connecticut (5.4 %), Ohio (2.6 %) and Massachusetts (2.1 %), whereas fentanyl-methamphetamine samples were most often in New Hampshire (6.1 %), Massachusetts (5.6 %), Vermont (2.4 %) and Maine (1.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Although relatively uncommon, the presence of fentanyl in the stimulant supply increased significantly between 2011 and 2016, with the greatest increases occuring between 2015-2016; the presence of these products was concentrated in the U.S. Northeast. Given these trends, strengthening community-based drug checking programs and surveillance within the public health infrastructure could help promote timely responses to novel threats posed by rapid shifts in the drug supply that may lead to inadvertent exposures.