Omalizumab Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Asthma in the US Medicare Population

Real-world severe asthma biologic administration and adherence differs by biologic: CHRONICLE study results

BACKGROUND

Patient adherence to biologic therapies is crucial for clinical benefits. Previous assessments of US patient adherence to severe asthma (SA) biologic therapies have relied on health care insurance claims data that have limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To describe real-world, specialist-reported, biologic administration and adherence among US adults with SA.

METHODS

CHRONICLE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045) is an ongoing real-world, noninterventional study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Sites report date and location for all biologic administrations. We evaluated biologic (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab) adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first 52 weeks and the mean number of days until patients received the expected number of doses for 13, 26, and 52 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 2117 patients received biologic administrations between February 2018 and February 2022. Most patients (84%) received biologic administrations at a subspecialist site. Over time, administrations at specialist sites decreased, whereas at-home administrations increased. The median PDC was 87%; the mean number of days to receive a 52-week (364-day) equivalent number of doses was 423 for all biologics (average delay of 58 days). Dupilumab had the lowest PDC and highest mean delays in dosing across all intervals; better adherence was observed among commercially insured patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with SA are mostly adherent to biologic therapies. Biologics with shorter dosing intervals and at-home administration had worse adherence, likely because of greater opportunities for delays. Specialist-reported administration data provide a unique perspective on biologic adherence, which may be overestimated for at-home administrations by insurance claims data.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373045.

Trends in price, spending, and utilization of omalizumab among Medicare beneficiaries

KEY POINTS

Between January 2005 and January 2023, the average selling price of omalizumab increased by nearly 60%. Between 2016 and 2021, Medicare Part B and D spending on omalizumab totaled over $3.7 billion. Between 2016 and 2021, Medicare Part B and D utilization of omalizumab increased by approximately 30%.

Factors Associated With Asthma Biologic Prescribing and Primary Adherence Among Adults in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

The availability of asthma biologics may not benefit all patients equally.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify patient characteristics associated with asthma biologic prescribing, primary adherence, and effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study of 9,147 adults with asthma who established care with a Penn Medicine asthma subspecialist was conducted using Electronic Health Record data from January 1, 2016, to October 18, 2021. Multivariable regression models were used to identify factors associated with (1) receipt of a new biologic prescription; (2) primary adherence, defined as receiving a dose in the year after receiving the prescription, and (3) oral corticosteroid (OCS) bursts in the year after the prescription.

RESULTS

Factors associated with a new prescription, which was received by 335 patients, included being a woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; P = .002), smoking currently (OR 0.50; P = .04), having an asthma hospitalization in the prior year (OR 2.91; P < .001), and having 4+ OCS bursts in the prior year (OR 3.01; P < .001). Reduced primary adherence was associated with Black race (incidence rate ratio 0.85; P < .001) and Medicaid insurance (incidence rate ratio 0.86; P < .001), although most in these groups, 77.6% and 74.3%, respectively, still received a dose. Nonadherence was associated with patient-level barriers in 72.2% of cases and health insurance denial in 22.2%. Having more OCS bursts after receiving a biologic prescription was associated with Medicaid insurance (OR 2.69; P = .047) and biologic days covered (OR 0.32 for 300-364 d vs 14-56 d; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large health system, primary adherence to asthma biologics varied by race and insurance type, whereas nonadherence was primarily explained by patient-level barriers.

Factors Related to Biologic Adherence and Outcomes Among Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Adherence barriers to asthma biologics may not be uniform across administration settings for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in asthma biologic adherence and associated factors, as well as association with a 1-year all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, across administration settings.

METHODS

A retrospective study of biologic naïve moderate-to-severe asthma patients with initial biologic therapy between January 1, 2016, and April 30, 2020, in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart was performed. Three administration settings were identified: Clinic-only (outpatient office/infusion center), Home (self-administration), and Hybrid setting (mixture of clinic and self-administration). Asthma biologic adherence was the proportion of observed over expected biologic dose administrations received within 6 months from initial therapy. Factors associated with adherence were identified by administration setting, using Poisson regression analyses. A relationship between a 1-year all-cause ED visit and adherence was assessed for each administration setting using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 3932 patients. Biologics adherence was 0.75 [0.5, 1] in Clinic setting, the most common administration setting, and 0.83 [0.5, 1] in both Home and Hybrid settings. Specialist access was consistently associated with better biologic adherence, whereas Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, lower education, Medicare only insurance, and higher patient out-of-pocket cost were associated with worse biologic adherence in some settings. In the Hybrid setting, hazard for a 1-year all-cause ED visit decreased with biologic adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma biologic adherence varied by administration setting. Efforts to improve asthma biologic adherence should consider promoting self-administration when beneficial, improving prior specialist access, and targeting patients with higher risk of suboptimal adherence particularly Black and Hispanic patients.

Baseline characteristics and secondary medication adherence among Medicare patients diagnosed with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy and/or receiving tafamidis prescriptions: A retrospective analysis of a Medicare cohort

BACKGROUND: Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is an underdiagnosed, life-threatening condition that mostly affects older persons. In May 2019, regulatory approval of tafamidis provided the first pharmacologic treatment of ATTR-CM. In the pivotal phase 3 Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial (ATTR-ACT), 97.2% of patients were classified as adherent (defined as taking ≥ 80% of scheduled doses). Given its recent approval, there is limited real-world evidence examining patient adherence to tafamidis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adherence patterns, demographics, and clinical characteristics of patients in the United States receiving tafamidis prescriptions through Medicare. Secondarily, we aimed to evaluate concomitant medications filled by this patient population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US Medicare claims data, limited by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, in adult patients with an adjudicated pharmacy claim for tafamidis (tafamidis free acid 61-mg capsule once daily or tafamidis meglumine four 20-mg capsules once daily) between May 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021. Gaps in therapy were measured using day gaps between prescription refills and continuous measure of medication gaps. Implementation adherence was assessed through modified medication possession ratio (MPRm), medication refill adherence (MRA), and proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients were grouped based on Medicare coverage. Patients were analyzed by subgroups based on age and at the zip code level, via distressed communities index quartiles and rural-urban tiers. RESULTS: A total of 3,558 patients who received a prescription fill of a tafamidis formulation were identified using Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) claims data from May 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021. The characteristics of this patient population were consistent with published literature, as 98.6% were older than 65 years, 53.4% were between 75 years and 84 years, and 81.5% were male. In the patient population receiving tafamidis refills, adherence was high across all 3 measures, with mean MPRm greater than 90% and mean MRA greater than 80%, across all age groups. Mean PDC adherence rates were 79% or more across all age groups. Concomitant medications were generally indicated for heart failure and thrombosis. Among monotherapy groups with similar demographic makeup, adherence was significantly higher among users of tafamidis free acid vs tafamidis meglumine (P < 0.0001 across all mean adherence measures). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that real-world adherence to tafamidis in the Medicare population is high, regardless of age, zip code-level socioeconomic quartile, or geography. Adherence was higher among patients receiving tafamidis free acid, suggesting that the enhanced convenience of a single capsule once daily may positively contribute to adherence among patients with ATTR-CM. DISCLOSURES: Darrin Benjumea is an employee of Genesis Research who has been contracted by Pfizer, Inc., for involvement in this study. Andrew Peterson is an employee of University of the Sciences who has been contracted by Pfizer, Inc., for involvement in this study. Zach Bredl is an employee of Care Journey who has been contracted by Pfizer, Inc., for involvement in this study. Anuja Roy, Nick Marchant, Jose Alvir, Rahul Bhambri, Jason Kemner, and Bhash Parasuraman are employees of Pfizer, Inc., and own stock and/or stock options. This study was supported by Pfizer, Inc.

Characteristics of new adult users of mepolizumab with asthma in the USA

BACKGROUND

In the USA, over 25 million people have asthma; 5%-10% of cases are severe. Mepolizumab (Nucala) is an interleukin-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody; it was approved by the FDA in 2015 as add-on maintenance treatment of severe asthma for patients aged ≥12 years with an eosinophilic phenotype.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Describe baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of new US adult mepolizumab users 2015-2019, (2) describe asthma medication use in the 12 months preceding initiation of and concomitant with mepolizumab and (3) assess mepolizumab adherence, persistence and discontinuation patterns in 12 months postinitiation.

METHODS

We conducted a new-user observational cohort study using data from Aetna, a CVS Health Company, HealthCore (Anthem), Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Curated administrative claims data in the FDA Sentinel System common data model format and publicly available Sentinel analytical tools were used to query the databases. We included adults who initiated mepolizumab in 2015-2019 with an asthma diagnosis in the preceding 12 months and no evidence of cystic fibrosis. We examined age, sex, comorbid conditions, asthma medication use and severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

We identified 3496 adults (mean age 54.2 years, SD 12.5 years) who initiated mepolizumab. In the 12 months before mepolizumab initiation, 22% had received inhaled corticosteroids, 46% had inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonists, 72.6% had leukotriene antagonists, 38% had long-acting muscarinic antagonist, 18% had omalizumab,<1% had reslizumab, dupilumab or benralizumab. In the previous 12 months, 70% had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, 32% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17% eosinophilia and 3% eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Further, 56% had an asthma-related ambulatory visit, 73%≥1 course of oral corticosteroids lasting 3-27 days, 10% an asthma-related emergency department visit and 22% an asthma-related hospitalisation. In the 12 months following initiation, the mean proportion of days covered was 70%, and reductions in the average mean dispensings of rescue oral corticosteriods (35%) and omalizumab (61%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with asthma treated with mepolizumab had varying levels of healthcare utilisation and we observed evidence of mepolizumab use in patients without severe asthma.

Factors leading to discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient- and physician-reported reasons for discontinuing biologic therapy among patients with severe asthma from a real-world US cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis surveyed US physicians and their patients with severe asthma who were receiving/had previously received biologic therapy between August and December 2019. Physicians managing ≥3 patients with asthma per month completed surveys on disease management, demographics, exacerbation history, and biologic adherence for eligible patients. Patients could voluntarily complete a questionnaire, providing perceptions of their disease and treatment.

RESULTS

117 physicians completed case reports for 285 patients; 85 patients had discontinued biologic therapy. Physicians (n = 85) and patients (n = 64) reported patient request (28.2% and 46.9%), shortness of breath (45.9% and 23.4%), other chronic respiratory symptoms (29.4% and 10.9%), cost/reimbursement (17.7%/9.4% and 20.3%/7.8%), and exacerbations (25.9% and 10.9%) among the main reasons for biologic discontinuation. Patients who continued biologic therapy were older (mean age 47.6 years) than those who discontinued (43.8 years), and were more likely to have ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year (52.5% vs 35.3%), allergic rhinitis (70.0% vs 62.4%), or chronic rhinosinusitis (30.0% vs 12.9%). Side effects were cited as reasons by only 15.3% and 7.8% of physicians and patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common reasons given for discontinuation of biologic therapy were lack of symptom control, exacerbations, cost, and patient request. These data highlight the complexity of care for this patient group and the need for ongoing, regular assessment of common challenges to biologic continuation and reasons for discontinuation, including both clinical and non-clinical factors.

Persistence of asthma biologic use in a US claims database

BACKGROUND

Little is known on the persistence of asthma biologic use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the persistence of asthma biologic use and time to clinical response in clinical practice.

METHODS

A cohort of people with asthma who used at least 1 asthma biologic was constructed using data from 2003 to 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Treatment persistence was defined by the length of time that a person continuously used an asthma biologic, allowing for a lapse in use up to 4 months before confirming that a person stopped. Clinical response to treatment (defined as a decline in asthma exacerbations of at least 50% compared with the 6 months before starting an asthma biologic) was described over time and in relation to biologic persistence.

RESULTS

There were 9575 people who had at least 1 episode of asthma biologic use. There were 5319 people (64%, 95% confidence interval, 63%-65%) who completed 6 months or more on an asthma biologic and 3284 (45%, 95% confidence interval, 44%-46%) who completed 12 months or more. Of people with 1 or more asthma exacerbation 6 months before index biologic use, 63%, 76%, 80%, and 81% realized a 50% or more reduction in postindex asthma exacerbations in the first 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and 18 to 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Between 48% and 64% of people remained on an asthma biologic for 6 months or more after first use. Most people who achieved a reduction in asthma exacerbations did so in the first 6 months of treatment.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Little is known about adherence to asthma biologics.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with subsequent asthma biologic adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed individuals with asthma who started asthma biologics in the OptumLab Data Warehouse and used that data until October 2019. We calculated proportion days covered (PDC) for ICS ± long-acting β-agonists in the 6 months before and after asthma biologics were started and asthma biologic PDC for the first 6 months of use. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75, ICS PDC ≥0.75 during the 6-month period after asthma biologic were started, and achievement of a ≥50% reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use.

RESULTS

We identified 5,319 people who started asthma biologics. The mean PDC for asthma biologics was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75-0.77) in the first 6 months after starting, higher than the mean PDCs for ICS in the 6 months before (0.44 [95% CI, 0.43-0.45]) and after (0.40 [95% CI, 0.39-0.40]) starting the asthma biologic. PDC ≥0.75 for ICS 6 months before index biologic use is associated with PDC for asthma biologics ≥0.75 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) and for ICS during the first 6 months of biologic use (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 8.55-11.53). Neither ICS PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14) nor asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36) is associated with a statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use among people with any exacerbation in the 6 months before first use.

INTERPRETATION

Adherence to asthma biologic is higher than to ICS and is associated with different factors.

Long-term omalizumab efficacy in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab therapy was found to be safe and effective as an add-on therapy for patients with poorly controlled severe asthma. Although several studies over the last decade have demonstrated its efficacy in other Immunoglobulin E related diseases, its use in such conditions is off-label.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of long-term therapy with Omalizumab in patients with persistent severe allergic rhinitis and inadequately controlled severe asthma.

METHODS

Patients with poorly controlled severe asthma and persistent allergic rhinitis were enrolled and treated with Omalizumab for 36 months with every four-week subcutaneous administration. The efficacy assessment included the severity of AR symptoms every six months using Visual Analogue Scale, Asthma Control Test, nasal endoscopy, spirometry, and biomarkers (blood eosinophils and neutrophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, total IgE).

RESULTS

Eleven patients aged between 26 and 70 years were enrolled, and 10 completed the study. A significant improvement of allergic rhinitis symptoms, Asthma Control Test, and lung function was observed. There was also a reduction in the status of the biomarkers at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

Long-term therapy with Omalizumab was effective and safe in treating severe persistent allergic rhinitis and concomitant asthma.

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background

Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience.

Methods

We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared.

Results

Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.