No abstract

The aim was to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted set of medication management interventions offered by a community pharmacy on adherence, health care utilization, and costs within a commercial population. Patients initiating therapy within 16 drug classes from February 7, 2013, to October 6, 2013, were offered various adherence interventions by Walgreens pharmacy. Patients were linked deterministically to IMS medical and prescription databases for 6-month pre- and post-index data analysis. Walgreens patients (intervention) were matched to patients using other pharmacies (control) on drug class, index date, baseline demographics, clinical factors, utilization, and costs. Outcomes were evaluated at the intent-to-treat level using post-index differences and generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression model. Paired t tests (continuous variables) and McNemar's test (dichotomous variables) were used to determine the significance of estimated model coefficients at α = 0.05. The groups (n = 72,410 each) had similar age (47.1 vs. 45.7 years), sex (41.2% vs. 40.2% male), and disease burden (0.52 vs. 0.40 mean Charlson comorbidity index). In the 6-month post-index period, the intervention group had 3.0% greater medication adherence, 1.8% fewer hospital admissions, 2.7% fewer emergency room (ER) visits, and 0.53 fewer mean outpatient visits compared to the control group (all P < 0.0001). The intervention group incurred significantly lower GEE-adjusted pharmacy costs (−$92), outpatient costs (−$120), ER costs (−$38), and total health care costs (−$226.07) (all P < 0.0001), and higher inpatient costs ($86, P < 0.004) per patient. A multifaceted set of medication management interventions offered by a community pharmacy were associated with patients in a commercial population having significantly higher medication adherence and lower health care utilization and costs.

BackgroundHealth Canada has defined rare diseases as life-threatening, seriously debilitating, or serious chronic conditions affecting a very small number of patients (~1 in 2,000 persons). An estimated 9 % of Canadians suffer from a rare disease. Drugs treating rare diseases (DRDs) are also known as orphan drugs. While Canada is currently developing an orphan drug framework, in the United States (US), the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983 established incentives for the development of orphan drugs.This study measured total annual expenditure of orphan drugs in Canada (2007–13) and estimated future (2014–18) orphan drug expenditure.MethodsOrphan drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US were used as a proxy for the orphan drug landscape in Canada. Branded, orphan drugs approved by the FDA between 1983 through 2013 were identified (N = 356 unique products). Only US orphan drugs with the same orphan indication(s) approved in Canada were included in the analysis. Adjustment via an indication factoring was applied to products with both orphan and non-orphan indications using available data sources to isolate orphan-indication sales. The IMS Health MIDAS database of audited biopharmaceutical sales was utilized to measure total orphan drug expenditure, calculated annually from 2007–2013 and evaluated as a proportion of total annual pharmaceutical drug expenditure (adjusted to 2014 CAD).ResultsBetween 2007 and 2013, expenditure was measured for a final N = 147 orphan drugs. Orphan drug expenditure totaled $610.2 million (M) in 2007 and $1,100.0 M in 2013, representing 3.3– 5.6 % of total Canadian pharmaceutical drug expenditure in 2007–2013, respectively. Future trend analysis suggests orphan drug expenditure will remain under 6 % of total expenditure in 2014–18.ConclusionsWhile the number of available orphan drugs and associated expenditure increased over time, access remains an issue, and from the perspectives of society and equity, overall spending on orphan drugs is lower relative to the number of patients affected with an orphan disease in Canada. The overall budget impact of orphan drugs is small and fairly stable relative to total pharmaceutical expenditure. Concerns that growth in orphan drug expenditure may lead to unsustainable drug expenditure do not appear to be justified.

Adherence to therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension is essential to optimize patient outcomes, but data on real-world adherence to different pulmonary arterial hypertension drug classes are limited. This retrospective database analysis evaluated relationships between adherence, hospitalization, and healthcare costs in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients treated with endothelin receptor antagonists or phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors. From the IQVIA Adjudicated Health Plan Database, patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension were identified based on diagnostic codes and prescriptions for endothelin receptor antagonists (ambrisentan, bosentan, macitentan) or phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil) approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Patients were assigned to the class of their most recently initiated (index) pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2015. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered; patients with proportion of days covered ≥80% were considered adherent. The proportion of adherent patients was higher for endothelin receptor antagonists (571/755; 75.6%) than for phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (970/1578; 61.5%; P < 0.0001). In both groups, hospitalizations declined as proportion of days covered increased. Among adherent patients, those on endothelin receptor antagonists had a significantly lower hospitalization rate than those on phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (23.1% versus 28.5%, P = 0. 0218), fewer hospitalizations (mean (standard deviation) 0.4 (0.8) versus 0.5 (0.9); P = 0.02), and mean hospitalization costs during the six-month post-index ($9510 versus $15,726, P = 0.0318). Increasing adherence reduced hospitalization risk more for endothelin receptor antagonists than for phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (hazard ratio 0.176 versus 0.549, P = 0.001). Rates and numbers of rehospitalizations within 30 days post-discharge were similar between groups. Mean total costs were higher with endothelin receptor antagonists than phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors in all patients ($91,328 versus $72,401, P = 0.0003) and in adherent patients ($88,867 versus $56,300, P < 0.0001), driven by higher drug costs.

This retrospective study estimated healthcare resource use (HRU), symptoms and toxicities (SxTox), and costs in relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), stratified by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) status. Claims data were used to identify adult patients with AML diagnoses from 1 January 2008 to 31 March 2016 in the USA. Patients were considered R/R if they had an AML relapse ICD-9 code (205.02) or a line of therapy consistent with R/R disease. The final R/R sample (N = 707) included 476 patients with and 231 patients without HSCT. The mean total episode cost (from relapse date to death or end of study period) for all patients was $439,104 (with HSCT $524,595 and without HSCT $263,310). Inpatient visits accounted for the greatest cost component (mean $308,978) followed by intensive care unit stays (mean $221,537), non-clinician (e.g., lab tests) visits (mean $30,909), and outpatient pharmacy utilization (mean $24,640). Patients with HSCT appeared to have longer episodes of care compared with patients without HSCT (16.8 vs 11.1 months), perhaps reflecting longer survival for HSCT patients. Mean number of visits within each category and their associated costs appeared to be higher in patients with HSCT compared with patients without HSCT. Patients with HSCT appeared to experience more SxTox compared with patients without HSCT across all categories. Results of the current study suggest that there is a substantial HRU and cost burden on R/R AML patients in the USA receiving active treatments. More effective therapies with improved tolerability would meet this tremendous unmet need in the R/R AML population.Funding: Astellas Pharma, Inc.