Impact of Out-of-Pocket Costs on Prescription Fills Among New Initiators of Biologic Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition

Importance

Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients.

Objective

To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included.

Exposure

Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry.

Results

Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

Cost-related prescription non-adherence and patient-reported outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus: The Michigan Lupus Epidemiology & Surveillance program

OBJECTIVES

Medication access and adherence play key roles in determining patient outcomes. We investigated whether cost-related non-adherence (CRNA) to prescription medications was associated with worse patient-reported outcomes in a population-based systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cohort.

METHODS

Sociodemographic and prescription data were collected by structured interviews in 2014-2015 from patients meeting SLE criteria in the established Michigan Lupus Epidemiology & Surveillance (MILES) Cohort. We examined the associations between CRNA and potential confounders such as sociodemographics and health insurance coverage, and outcome measures of SLE activity and damage using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

462 SLE participants completed the study visit: 430 (93.1%) female, 208 (45%) Black, and mean age 53.3 years. 100 (21.6%) participants with SLE reported CRNA in the preceding 12 months. After adjusting for covariates, CRNA was associated with both higher levels of current SLE disease activity [SLAQ: β coeff 2.7 (95% CI 1.3, 4.1), p < 0.001] and damage [LDIQ β coeff 1.4 (95% CI 0.5, 2.4), p = 0.003]. Race, health insurance status, and fulfilling Fibromyalgia (FM) Survey Criteria were independently associated with both higher (worse) SLAQ and LDIQ scores; female sex was further associated with higher SLAQ scores.

CONCLUSION

Patients with SLE who reported CRNA in the previous 12 months had significantly worse self-reported current disease activity and damage scores compared to those not reporting CRNA. Raising awareness and addressing barriers or concerns related to financial implications and accessibility issues in care plans may help to improve these outcomes.

The association between cost sharing, prior authorization, and specialty drug utilization: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are identified by high monthly costs and complexity of administration. Payers use utilization management strategies, including prior authorization and separate tiers with higher cost sharing, to control spending. These strategies can negatively impact patients' health outcomes through treatment initiation delays, medication abandonment, and nonadherence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of patient cost sharing on specialty drug utilization and the effect of prior authorization on treatment delay and specialty drug utilization. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in the period between February 2021 and April 2022 using PubMed for articles published in English without restriction on date of publication. We included research papers with prior authorization and cost sharing for specialty drugs as exposure variables and specialty drug utilization as the outcome variable. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers and relevant information from eligible studies was extracted using a standardized form and approved by 2 reviewers. Review papers, opinion pieces, and projects without data were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in this review after screening and exclusions, 9 on prior authorization and 35 on cost sharing. Patients with lower cost sharing via patient support programs experienced higher adherence, fewer days to fill prescriptions, and lower discontinuation rates. Similar outcomes were noted for patients on low-income subsidy programs. Increasing cost sharing above $100 was associated with up to 75% abandonment rate for certain specialty drugs. This increased level of cost sharing was also associated with higher discontinuation rates and odds. At the same time, decreasing out-of-pocket costs increased initiation of specialty drugs. However, inconsistent results on impact of cost sharing on medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) were reported. Some studies reported a negative association between higher costs and MPR and PDC; however, MPR and PDC of cancer specialty drugs did not decrease with higher costs. Significant delays in prescription initiation were reported when prior authorization was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of patient cost sharing reduce specialty drug use by increasing medication abandonment while generally decreasing initiation and persistence. Similarly, programs that reduce patient cost sharing increase initiation and persistence. In contrast, cost sharing had an inconsistent and bidirectional effect on MPR and PDC. Prior authorization caused treatment delays, but its effects on specialty drug use varied. More research is needed to examine the effect of cost sharing and prior authorization on long-term health outcomes.

Cost-sharing and adherence, clinical outcomes, health care utilization, and costs: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: US health plans are adopting benefit designs that shift greater financial burden to patients through higher deductibles, additional copay tiers, and coinsurance. Prior systematic reviews found that higher cost was associated with reductions in both appropriate and inappropriate medications. However, these reviews were conducted prior to contemporary benefit design and medication utilization. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship and factors associated with cost-sharing and (1) medication adherence, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) health care resource utilization (HRU), and (4) costs. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published between January 2010 and August 2020 was conducted to identify the relationship between cost-sharing and medication adherence, clinical outcomes, HRU, and health care costs. Data were extracted using a standardized template and were synthesized by key questions of interest. RESULTS: From 1,995 records screened, 79 articles were included. Most studies, 71 of 79 (90%), reported the relationship between cost-sharing and treatment adherence, persistence and/or discontinuation; 16 (20%) reported data on cost-sharing and HRU or medication initiation, 11 (14%) on costsharing and health care costs, and 6 (8%) on cost-sharing and clinical outcomes. The majority of publications found that, regardless of disease area, increased cost-sharing was associated with worse adherence, persistence, or discontinuation. The aggregate data suggested the greater the magnitude of cost-sharing, the worse the adherence. Among studies examining clinical outcomes, cost-sharing was associated with worse outcomes in 1 study and the remaining 3 found no significant differences. Regarding HRU, higher-cost-sharing trended toward decreased outpatient and increased inpatient utilization. The available evidence suggested higher cost-sharing has an overall neutral to negative impact on total costs. Studies evaluating elimination of copays found either decreased or no impact in total costs. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature shows consistent impacts of higher cost sharing on initiation and continuation of medications, and the greater the cost-sharing, the worse the medication adherence. The evidence is limited regarding the impact of cost-sharing on clinical outcomes, HRU, and costs. Limited evidence suggests increased cost-sharing is associated with more inpatient care and less outpatient care; however, a neutral to no difference was suggested for other outcomes. Although increased costsharing is intended to decrease total costs, studies evaluating reducing or eliminating cost-sharing found that total costs did not rise. Today's growing cost-containment environment should carefully consider the broader impact cost-sharing has on treatment adherence, clinical outcomes, resource use, and total costs. It may be that cost-sharing is a blunt, rather than precise, tool to curb health care costs, affecting both necessary and unnecessary health care use. DISCLOSURES: This study and the development of this article were funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Mr Sils is an employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council. Dr Graff is a former employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council. Drs Fusco and Kistler and Ms Ruiz are employees of Xcenda. Xcenda received funding to conduct the literature review.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Following the Availability of Biosimilar Versions of Infliximab

After market exclusivity ends for biologic drugs, biosimilars-follow-on versions made by other manufacturers-can compete with lower prices. Biosimilars have modestly reduced prescription drug spending for US payers, but it is unclear whether patients have directly experienced any savings. In this study we assessed whether availability of biosimilar infliximab was associated with lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, using claims from a national data set of commercially insured patients from 2014 to 2018. We used two-part models, adjusting for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance plan type, and calendar month. Compared with the reference biologic, there was no difference in the percentage of biosimilar claims with OOP costs (30.1% vs. 30.8%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.15, P = 0.84) or the average nonzero OOP cost (median $378 vs. $538, adjusted mean ratio (aMR) 0.97, 95% CI, 0.80-1.18, P = 0.77). The percentage of claims with OOP costs was lower after biosimilar competition (30.7% vs. 35.0%, aOR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94-0.99, P = 0.003), but average nonzero costs increased (median $534 vs. $520, aMR 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.07, P = 0.004). Thus, early biosimilar infliximab competition did not improve affordability for patients. Policymakers need to better assure that competition in the biosimilar market translates to lower costs for patients using these medications.

Cost-Related Non-Utilization of Health Services and Self-Perceived Reactions to Race

Purpose

There is limited information regarding the prevalence and predictors of cost-related non-utilization (CRNU), while there is increasing attention to the rising out-of-pocket cost of health services including prescription medications. Prior studies have not quantified the role of perceived racism despite its documented relationship with health services utilization. We examine perceptions of reactions to race and quantify their relationship with CRNU.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study utilized data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) public use file, an annual, state-based telephone survey of US adults aged 18 and older. We utilized data for four states that provided responses to five Reactions to Race items, including information about the self-perceived quality of the respondent's health care experience compared with people of other races (worse vs same or better) and whether the respondent experienced physical symptoms because of treatment due to their race. The three binary outcomes were: 1) did not visit a physician; 2) did not visit a physician due to cost; 3) did not fill a prescription due to cost. We estimated covariate-adjusted odds ratios associated with each outcome using logistic regression models.

Results

The BRFSS sample consisted of 20,366 respondents of whom 8% were African American non-Hispanic, 12% were Hispanic and 73% were White. Three percent of respondents considered their experience to be worse than people of other races. Three percent of individuals reported physical symptoms because of treatment due to their race while 5% of respondents reported becoming emotionally upset because of treatment due to their race. The proportions for the three study outcomes were 11%, 13% and 7%, respectively. In covariate-adjusted models, a worse experience with the health care system was statistically significantly associated with CRNU (physician visit: 2.6 [95% CI: 1.6 - 4.3]). The experience of physical symptoms because of treatment due to race was statistically significantly associated with CRNU (physician visit: 2.6 [95% CI: 1.7 - 4]; prescription fills: 2.1 [1.2 - 3.6]). No Reactions to Race items were associated with general non-utilization.

Conclusions

Negative perceptions of reactions to race during the time of health services utilization is positively associated with CRNU, ie, foregoing physician visits and prescription fills due to cost.

Phytol, a Chlorophyll Component, Produces Antihyperalgesic, Anti-inflammatory, and Antiarthritic Effects: Possible NFκB Pathway Involvement and Reduced Levels of the Proinflammatory Cytokines TNF-α and IL-6

Phytol is a diterpene constituent of chlorophyll and has been shown to have several pharmacological properties, particularly in relation to the management of painful inflammatory diseases. Arthritis is one of the most common of these inflammatory diseases, mainly affecting the synovial membrane, cartilage, and bone in joints. Proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α and IL-6, and the NFκB signaling pathway play a pivotal role in arthritis. However, as the mechanisms of action of phytol and its ability to reduce the levels of these cytokines are poorly understood, we decided to investigate its pharmacological effects using a mouse model of complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA)-induced arthritis. Our results showed that phytol was able to inhibit joint swelling and hyperalgesia throughout the whole treatment period. Moreover, phytol reduced myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity and proinflammatory cytokine release in synovial fluid and decreased IL-6 production as well as the COX-2 immunocontent in the spinal cord. It also downregulated the p38MAPK and NFκB signaling pathways. Therefore, our findings demonstrated that phytol can be an innovative antiarthritic agent due to its capacity to attenuate inflammatory reactions in joints and the spinal cord, mainly through the modulation of mediators that are key to the establishment of arthritic pain.

Assessment of Expected Out-of-Pocket Spending for Rheumatoid Arthritis Biologics Among Patients Enrolled in Medicare Part D, 2010-2019

IMPORTANCE

The closure of the Medicare Part D coverage gap from 2010 to 2019 was intended to help decrease out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries, especially those taking high-cost drugs. However, yearly increases in list prices and the introduction of newer and more expensive drugs may have limited savings for beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of closure in the Medicare Part D coverage gap with projected annual out-of-pocket costs from 2010 through 2019 for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis used data from the Medicare Formulary and Pricing Files for the first quarter (January 1 to March 31) in each calendar year from 2010 to 2019 for 17 RA biologic drug and strength combinations.

EXPOSURES

Medicare Part D plan design and drug price by year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Expected annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 year of treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 17 drug and strength combinations assessed, list prices increased each year for every product, with a mean increase of 160% for the 6 drugs available during the entire study period. For the 6 products available during the entire study period, projected mean (SD) annual out-of-pocket costs were 34% (2%) lower in 2011 than in 2010 ($6108 in 2010 to $4026 in 2011) but only 21% (8%) lower in 2019 ($4801) because of yearly increases in list price. All 4 products with higher out-of-pocket costs in 2019 than in the first year available entered the market between 2011 and 2015. For all products studied, the percentage of money spent in the catastrophic phase increased each year and was a mean (SD) of 22% (14%) higher in 2019 than in 2010 or the year first available.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although beneficiaries experienced large reductions in out-of-pocket spending from 2010 to 2011, more than half of those savings were lost by 2019 because of annual increases in list prices, even as the coverage gap continued to close in subsequent years.

Association of out-of-pocket costs on adherence to common neurologic medications

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between out-of-pocket costs and medication adherence in 3 common neurologic diseases.

METHODS

Utilizing privately insured claims from 2001 to 2016, we identified patients with incident neuropathy, dementia, or Parkinson disease (PD). We selected patients who were prescribed medications with similar efficacy and tolerability, but differential out-of-pocket costs (neuropathy with gabapentinoids or mixed serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], dementia with cholinesterase inhibitors, PD with dopamine agonists). Medication adherence was defined as the number of days supplied in the first 6 months. Instrumental variable analysis was used to estimate the association of out-of-pocket costs and other patient factors on medication adherence.

RESULTS

We identified 52,249 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids, 5,246 patients with neuropathy on SNRIs, 19,820 patients with dementia on cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,130 patients with PD on dopamine agonists. Increasing out-of-pocket costs by $50 was associated with significantly lower medication adherence for patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and dementia (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91). Increased out-of-pocket costs for patients with neuropathy on SNRIs (adjusted IRR 0.97, 0.88-1.08) and patients with PD (adjusted IRR 0.90, 0.81-1.00) were not significantly associated with medication adherence. Minority populations had lower adherence with gabapentinoids and cholinesterase inhibitors compared to white patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with lower medication adherence in 3 common neurologic conditions. When prescribing medications, physicians should consider these costs in order to increase adherence, especially as out-of-pocket costs continue to rise. Racial/ethnic disparities were also observed; therefore, minority populations should receive additional focus in future intervention efforts to improve adherence.

Impact of Online Prescription Management Systems on Biologic Treatment Initiation

Introduction

Pharmaceutical firms have begun offering online prescription management systems to facilitate prescription processing. This study evaluated the impact of the HUMIRA Complete Pro (HCPro) online prescription management system on the rate of abandonment and the time to first fill for patients prescribed adalimumab (ADA). A retrospective cohort analysis of patients initiating ADA treatment with or without use of the HCPro online prescription processing system was used to evaluate the impact of HCPro on treatment initiation outcomes.

Methods

Patient-level data for patients with an ADA prescription processed through HCPro were mapped to Symphony Health claims for patients initiating ADA between January 2012 and January 2015. The sample included patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who had data available 3 months before and after their first ADA claim (index date). Baseline characteristics, prescription abandonment rate, and time-to-first-prescription fill were compared between patients with a prescription processed through HCPro (HCPro cohort) and those without (non-HCPro cohort). The odds of abandonment were evaluated in the 3 months following the index date using a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

The study included 24,767 patients (535 HCPro; 24,232 non-HCPro). HCPro patients had a greater frequency of initiation at a specialty pharmacy (66% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and enrollment in AbbVie’s patient support program (71% vs. 51%; P < 0.001) as well as a lower copay for ADA ($206 vs. $265; P = 0.011). HCPro patients had a lower abandonment rate (6.4% vs. 13.9%; P < 0.001) and reduced days to prescription fill (7.0 vs. 14.4; P < 0.001). After controlling for baseline characteristics, abandonment odds were 43% lower for patients using HCPro (odds ratio = 0.57; P = 0.004).

Conclusion

Initiating ADA treatment with an online prescription management system (HCPro) significantly reduces the odds of abandonment and time to first prescription fill.

Funding

AbbVie Inc., Chicago, USA.

Out-of-pocket costs are on the rise for commonly prescribed neurologic medications

OBJECTIVE

To determine out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications in 5 common neurologic diseases.

METHODS

Utilizing a large, privately insured, health care claims database from 2004 to 2016, we captured out-of-pocket medication costs for patients seen by outpatient neurologists with multiple sclerosis (MS), peripheral neuropathy, epilepsy, dementia, and Parkinson disease (PD). We compared out-of-pocket costs for those in high-deductible health plans compared to traditional plans and explored cumulative out-of-pocket costs over the first 2 years after diagnosis across conditions with high- (MS) and low/medium-cost (epilepsy) medications.

RESULTS

The population consisted of 105,355 patients with MS, 314,530 with peripheral neuropathy, 281,073 with epilepsy, 120,720 with dementia, and 90,801 with PD. MS medications had the fastest rise in monthly out-of-pocket expenses (mean [SD] $15 [$23] in 2004, $309 [$593] in 2016) with minimal differences between medications. Out-of-pocket costs for brand name medications in the other conditions also rose considerably. Patients in high-deductible health plans incurred approximately twice the monthly out-of-pocket expense as compared to those not in these plans ($661 [$964] vs $246 [$472] in MS, $40 [$94] vs $18 [$46] in epilepsy in 2016). Cumulative 2-year out-of-pocket costs rose almost linearly over time in MS ($2,238 [$3,342]) and epilepsy ($230 [$443]).

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications have increased considerably over the last 12 years, particularly for those in high-deductible health plans. Out-of-pocket costs vary widely both across and within conditions. To minimize patient financial burden, neurologists require access to precise cost information when making treatment decisions.

Participation in an innovative patient support program reduces prescription abandonment for adalimumab-treated patients in a commercial population

PURPOSE

Nonadherence to indicated therapy reduces treatment effectiveness and may increase cost of care. HUMIRA Complete, a Patient Support Program (PSP), aims to reduce nonadherence in patients prescribed adalimumab (ADA). The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between participation in the PSP and prescription abandonment rates among ADA-treated patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This longitudinal study using patient-level data from AbbVie's PSP linked with medical and pharmacy claims data included patients ≥18 years with an ADA-approved indication, ≥1 pharmacy claim for ADA, and available data ≥3 months before and ≥6 months after the index date (defined as the initial ADA claim [01/2015 to 02/2017]). Abandonment was defined as reversal of initial ADA prescription with no paid claim during 3-month follow-up. Abandonment rates were compared between PSP and non-PSP cohorts using multivariable logistic regression controlling for potentially confounding baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

In 17,371 patients (9,851 PSP; 7,520 non-PSP), the overall abandonment rate was 10.8-16.8% across indications. The odds of ADA abandonment were 70% less for PSP vs non-PSP patients (5.6% vs 20.4%, odds ratio [OR]=0.30, [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.27-0.33] P<0.001), 38% less for patients using specialty vs retail pharmacy (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.56-0.69, P<0.001), 20% less for those with income of $50-99K vs $0-49K (OR=0.80, 95% CI=0.69-0.92, P<0.01), and 78% greater for those with copayment of $26-100 vs $0-25 (OR=1.78, 95% CI=1.55-2.05, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Participation in the PSP, higher income, and using a specialty pharmacy were associated with lower odds of abandoning ADA therapy, whereas increased copayments were associated with greater abandonment. PSPs should be considered to improve initiation of ADA therapy.

Impact of Osteoarthritis on Household Catastrophic Health Expenditures in Korea

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease of old age whose prevalence is increasing. This study explored the impact of OA on household catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) in Korea.

METHODS

We used data on 5,200 households from the Korea Health Panel Survey in 2013 and estimated annual living expenses and out-of-pocket (OOP) payments. Household CHE was defined when a household's total OOP health payments exceeded 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% of the household's capacity to pay. To compare the OOP payments of households with OA individuals and those without OA, OA households were matched 1:1 with households containing a member with other chronic disease such as neoplasm, hypertension, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, or osteoporosis. The impact of OA on CHE was determined by multivariable logistic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,289 households were included, and households with and without OA patients paid mean annual OOP payments of $2,789 and $2,607, respectively. The prevalence of household CHE at thresholds of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% were higher in households with OA patients than in those without OA patients (P < 0.001). The presence of OA patients in each household contributed significantly to CHE at thresholds of 10% (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.87), 20% (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.66), and 30% (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.78), but not of 40% (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.87-1.57).

CONCLUSION

The presence of OA patients in Korean households is significantly related to CHE. Policy makers should try to reduce OOP payments in households with OA patients.

Factors associated with physicians' prescriptions for rheumatoid arthritis drugs not filled by patients

Background

This study estimated the extent and predictors of primary nonadherence (i.e., prescriptions made by physicians but not initiated by patients) to methotrexate and to biologics or tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who were newly prescribed these medications.

Methods

Using administrative claims linked with electronic health records (EHRs) from multiple healthcare provider organizations in the USA, RA patients who received a new prescription for methotrexate or biologics/tofacitinib were identified from EHRs. Claims data were used to ascertain filling or administration status. A logistic regression model for predicting primary nonadherence was developed and tested in training and test samples. Predictors were selected based on clinical judgment and LASSO logistic regression.

Results

A total of 36.8% of patients newly prescribed methotrexate failed to initiate methotrexate within 2 months; 40.6% of patients newly prescribed biologics/tofacitinib failed to initiate within 3 months. Factors associated with methotrexate primary nonadherence included age, race, region, body mass index, count of active drug ingredients, and certain previously diagnosed and treated conditions at baseline. Factors associated with biologics/tofacitinib primary nonadherence included age, insurance, and certain previously treated conditions at baseline. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the logistic regression model estimated in the training sample and applied to the independent test sample was 0.86 and 0.78 for predicting primary nonadherence to methotrexate and to biologics/tofacitinib, respectively.

Conclusions

This study confirmed that failure to initiate new prescriptions for methotrexate and biologics/tofacitinib was common in RA patients. It is feasible to predict patients at high risk of primary nonadherence to methotrexate and to biologics/tofacitinib and to target such patients for early interventions to promote adherence.

A 4-year non-randomized comparative phase-IV study of early rheumatoid arthritis: integrative anthroposophic medicine for patients with preference against DMARDs versus conventional therapy including DMARDs for patients without preference

BACKGROUND

While disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are a mainstay of therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), some patients with early RA refuse DMARDs. In anthroposophic medicine (AM), a treatment strategy for early RA without DMARDs has been developed. Preliminary data suggest that RA symptoms and inflammatory markers can be reduced under AM, without DMARDs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and fifty-one self-selected patients aged 16-70 years, starting treatment for RA of <3 years duration, without prior DMARD therapy, participated in a prospective, non-randomized, comparative Phase IV study. C-patients were treated in clinics offering conventional therapy including DMARDs, while A-patients had chosen treatment in anthroposophic clinics, without DMARDs. Both groups received corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Primary outcomes were intensity of RA symptoms measured by self-rating on visual analog scales, C-reactive protein, radiological progression, study withdrawals, serious adverse events (SAE), and adverse drug reactions in months 0-48.

RESULTS

The groups were similar in most baseline characteristics, while A-patients had longer disease duration (mean 15.1 vs 10.8 months, p<0.0001), slightly more bone destruction, and a much higher proportion of women (94.6% vs 69.7%, p<0.0001). In months 0-12, corticosteroids were used by 45.7% and 81.6% (p<0.0001) and NSAIDs by 52.8% and 68.5% (p=0.0191) of A- and C-patients, respectively. During follow-up, both groups not only had marked reduction of RA symptoms and C-reactive protein, but also some radiological disease progression. Also, 6.2% of A-patients needed DMARDs. Apart from adverse drug reactions (50.4% and 69.7% of A- and C-patients, respectively, p=0.0020), none of the primary outcomes showed any significant between-group difference.

CONCLUSION

Study results suggest that for most patients preferring anthroposophic treatment, satisfactory results can be achieved without use of DMARDs and with less use of corticosteroids and NSAIDs than in conventional care.

LIMITATION

Because of the non-randomized study design, with A-patients choosing anthroposophic treatment, one cannot infer how this treatment would have worked for C-patients.

The unmet need in rheumatology: Reports from the targeted therapies meeting 2017

The 19th annual international Targeted Therapies meeting brought together over 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers from around the world in the field of immunology, molecular biology and rheumatology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were held consisting of 5 disease-specific groups with 20-40 experts assigned to each group based on clinical or scientific expertise. Specific groups included: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematous, connective tissue diseases (e.g. Sjogren's syndrome, Systemic sclerosis, vasculitis including Bechet's and IgG4 related disease), and a basic science immunology group spanning all of the above clinical domains. In each group, experts were asked to consider and update previously identified unmet needs in 3 categorical areas: basic/translational science, clinical science and therapeutic development, and clinical care. Overall, similar primary unmet needs were identified within each disease foci, and several additional needs were identified since the time of last year's congress. Within translational/basic science, the need for better understanding the heterogeneity within each disease was highlighted so that predictive tools for therapeutic responses can be developed. Within clinical science and therapeutic trials, a strong focus was placed upon the need to identify pre-clinical states of disease allowing prevention in those at risk. The ability to cure remains perhaps the ultimate unmet need. Further, the need to develop new and affordable therapeutics, as well as to conduct strategic trials of currently approved therapies was again highlighted. Within the clinical care realm, improved co-morbidity management and patient-centered care were identified as unmet needs. Lastly, it was strongly felt there was a need to develop a scientific infrastructure for well-characterized, longitudinal cohorts paired with biobanks and mechanisms to support data-sharing. This infrastructure could facilitate many of the unmet needs identified within each disease area.

Impact of Out-of-Pocket Pharmacy Costs on Branded Medication Adherence Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is pivotal for the successful treatment of diabetes. However, medication adherence remains a major concern, as nonadherence is associated with poor health outcomes. Studies have indicated that increasing patients' share of medication costs significantly reduces adherence. Little is known about a potential out-of-pocket (OOP) cost threshold where substantial reduction in adherence may occur.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of diabetes OOP pharmacy costs on antihyperglycemic medication adherence and identify the potential threshold at which significant reduction in adherence may occur among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective cohort study using longitudinal U.S. pharmacy and medical claims data from the IMS Health Medical Claims (Dx) database. Patients with T2DM who initiated therapy with a branded antihyperglycemic medication during the index period (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011) and had 3 years of follow-up data were included. The primary outcome was adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, measured as the number of days covered. Propensity scores were calculated using baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics to control for potential confounding factors. Four strata were created based on mean propensity scores. Across each stratum, patients were assigned to 5 diabetes OOP pharmacy (including generics) cost levels: $0-$10, $11-$40, $41-$50, $51-$75, and > $75. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate association of diabetes OOP pharmacy costs and adherence for each stratum. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of total OOP pharmacy costs and index drug category OOP costs on adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 15,416 patients were assessed. Across each stratum in the diabetes OOP pharmacy cost analysis group, mean patient age ranged from 52.3 to 56.1 years, mean number of antihyperglycemic medication classes ranged from 1.5 to 3.2, and mean household income ranged from $60,763 to $79,373. Most patients used a commercial plan (55%-85%). The propensity-stratified multivariate regression model revealed an overall negative relationship between diabetes OOP pharmacy costs and adherence across several OOP cost levels. Diabetes OOP pharmacy cost level $51-$75 appeared as the threshold at which adherence reduced significantly (77-78 fewer days of coverage over 3 years of follow-up; P < 0.05) when compared with the lowest OOP costs ($0-$10) across all strata. Adherence reduced further (99-145 fewer days of coverage; P < 0.0001) for the higher diabetes OOP pharmacy cost levels (> $75) when compared with the lowest OOP cost levels. Sensitivity analyses with total OOP pharmacy costs and index drug category OOP costs revealed negative association with adherence across all strata.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes OOP pharmacy cost was negatively associated with patient adherence, and a potential OOP cost threshold ($51-$75) was identified at which adherence reduced significantly. The study findings may be beneficial in informing the design of health care plans to achieve optimal adherence and improve disease management in patients with T2DM.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Eli Lilly and Company was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation of the manuscript; and decision to submit for publication. Fu is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Taylor and Kwan are employees of Lilly USA. Fu and Kwan hold stock or stock options in Eli Lilly and Company. Bibeau was an employee of Eli Lilly and Company at the time of this study and initial submission of this manuscript. Bibeau is currently employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The abstract for this study was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, California. Bibeau and Fu contributed to the study design and collected the data. All authors contributed equally to data interpretation and manuscript preparation and revision.

Room for more IL-6 blockade? Sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment has been revolutionized by the development of highly efficacious biotherapeutics. However, a significant subset of RA patients has persistently active disease and ongoing erosive joint damage despite the available therapies. Sarilumab targets interleukin-6, one of the main cytokines mediating inflammation in RA. Positive results with sarilumab in RA clinical trials support the licensing application currently under review with the US Food and Drug Administration.

AREAS COVERED

The rationale for IL-6 targeting in RA, the pharmacologic properties of sarilumab, and the clinical trial results are reviewed focusing on the pending application for the RA indication. Comparisons with other IL-6 targeting biologics as well as additional potential therapeutic directions are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Sarilumab is a highly active therapeutic in patients with RA. While pharmacologic data demonstrate that sarilumab has a higher affinity than tocilizumab for the target receptor, available clinical results suggest that efficacy and adverse event profiles are similar to this other IL-6 blocker, which is currently approved for the treatment of RA. Whether there are other distinct differences or advantages of sarilumab that will support the approval and successful marketing of this drug, over existing therapies, remains to be determined.