Publications

BACKGROUND: Although metformin is generally universally recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy for most people living with type 2 diabetes, second-line and third-line choices can require a tailored approach to achieve optimal blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels. OBJECTIVE: To examine national trends in second- and third-line antihyperglycemic medications following metformin monotherapy, comparing 2015 and 2019. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified pharmacy claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, and again in January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, included adults (aged ≥ 18 years) continuously enrolled in commercial or Medicare insurance plans who filled an index metformin prescription in either year. Proportions of patients by second-line and third-line antihyperglycemic class were calculated. RESULTS: Second-line use of sulfonylureas (-10.1%; P < 0.001), combination drugs (-3.0%; P < 0.001), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (-2.0%; P = 0.031) significantly declined, whereas second-line use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) (+4.9%; P < 0.001) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ras) (+10.0%; P < 0.001) significantly increased. Similarly, third-line use of sulfonylureas declined (-5.5%; P = 0.005), whereas third-line use of SGLT2is (+3.4%; P = 0.005) and GLP-1RAs (+8.3%; P < 0.001) increased. Similar trends between 2015 and 2019 were found in commercial and Medicare subgroups. Among all groups in 2015 compared with 2019, sulfonylureas were the most prescribed second-line class and insulins the most common third-line class. Although SGLT2i and GLP-1RA together represented more than one-third of second-line and third-line prescriptions for commercially insured patients in 2019 (34.3% and 35.0%, respectively), these classes were less frequently prescribed in the Medicare subgroup (18% and 25.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This report provides updated second-line and third-line antihyperglycemic medication prescribing trends in the United States, which suggests that evidence-based guidelines are being used in practice to prevent complications and individualize diabetes care. DISCLOSURES: Ms Swart and Drs Peasah and Good are employed by UPMC Health Plan. Dr Neilson was employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of the study. Drs Munshi and Henderson were employed by Evernorth at the time of the study.

IMPORTANCE: Drug companies frequently claim that high prices are needed to recoup spending on research and development. If high research and development costs justified high drug prices, then an association between these 2 measures would be expected.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between treatment costs and research and development investments for new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2009 to 2018.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study analyzed 60 drugs approved by the FDA between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, for which data on research and development investments and list or net prices were available. Data sources included the FDA and SSR Health databases.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary independent variable was estimated research and development investment. The outcome was standardized treatment costs (ie, annual treatment costs for both chronic and cycle drugs, and treatment costs for the maximum length of treatment recommended for acute drugs). Standardized treatment costs were estimated separately using list and net prices obtained from SSR Health at the time of launch and in 2021. To test the association between research and development investments and treatment costs, correlation coefficients were estimated and linear regression models were fitted that controlled for other factors that were associated with treatment costs, such as orphan status. Two models were used: a fully adjusted model that was adjusted for all variables in the data set associated with treatment costs and a parsimonious model in which highly correlated variables were excluded.

RESULTS: No correlation was observed between estimated research and development investments and log-adjusted treatment costs based on list prices at launch (R = -0.02 and R2 = 0.0005; P = .87) or net prices 1 year after launch (R = 0.08 and R2 = 0.007; P = .73). This result held when 2021 prices were used to estimate treatment costs. The linear regression models showed no association between estimated research and development investments and log-adjusted treatment costs at launch (β = 0.002 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02; P = .84] in the fully adjusted model; β = 0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .46] in the parsimonious model) or from 2021 (β = -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.01; P = .30] in the fully adjusted model; β = -0.004 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02; P = .66] in the parsimonious model).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this study indicated that research and development investments did not explain the variation in list prices for the 60 drugs in this sample. Drug companies should make further data available to support their claims that high drug prices are needed to recover research and development investments, if they are to continue to use this argument to justify high prices.

BACKGROUND: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has repeatedly called for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine equity. The objective our study was to measure equity in the early distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to healthcare facilities across the US. Specifically, we tested whether the likelihood of a healthcare facility administering COVID-19 vaccines in May 2021 differed by county-level racial composition and degree of urbanicity.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: The outcome was whether an eligible vaccination facility actually administered COVID-19 vaccines as of May 2021, and was defined by spatially matching locations of eligible and actual COVID-19 vaccine administration locations. The outcome was regressed against county-level measures for racial/ethnic composition, urbanicity, income, social vulnerability index, COVID-19 mortality, 2020 election results, and availability of nontraditional vaccination locations using generalized estimating equations. Across the US, 61.4% of eligible healthcare facilities and 76.0% of eligible pharmacies provided COVID-19 vaccinations as of May 2021. Facilities in counties with >42.2% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., > 95th county percentile of Black race composition) were less likely to serve as COVID-19 vaccine administration locations compared to facilities in counties with <12.5% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., lower than US average), with OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98, p = 0.030. Location of a facility in a rural county (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.90, p < 0.001, versus metropolitan county) or in a county in the top quintile of COVID-19 mortality (OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.93, p = 0.001, versus bottom 4 quintiles) was associated with decreased odds of serving as a COVID-19 vaccine administration location. There was a significant interaction of urbanicity and racial/ethnic composition: In metropolitan counties, facilities in counties with >42.2% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., >95th county percentile of Black race composition) had 32% (95% CI 14% to 47%, p = 0.001) lower odds of serving as COVID administration facility compared to facilities in counties with below US average Black population. This association between Black composition and odds of a facility serving as vaccine administration facility was not observed in rural or suburban counties. In rural counties, facilities in counties with above US average Hispanic population had 26% (95% CI 11% to 38%, p = 0.002) lower odds of serving as vaccine administration facility compared to facilities in counties with below US average Hispanic population. This association between Hispanic ethnicity and odds of a facility serving as vaccine administration facility was not observed in metropolitan or suburban counties. Our analyses did not include nontraditional vaccination sites and are based on data as of May 2021, thus they represent the early distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Our results based on this cross-sectional analysis may not be generalizable to later phases of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution process.

CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare facilities in counties with higher Black composition, in rural areas, and in hardest-hit communities were less likely to serve as COVID-19 vaccine administration locations in May 2021. The lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations among minority populations and rural areas has been attributed to vaccine hesitancy; however, decreased access to vaccination sites may be an additional overlooked barrier.

OBJECTIVE: Inequities in access to health care contribute to persisting disparities in health care outcomes. We constructed a geographic information systems analysis to test the association between income and access to the existing health care infrastructure in a nationally representative sample of US residents. Using income and household size data, we calculated the odds ratio of having a distance > 10 miles in nonmetropolitan counties or > 1 mile in metropolitan counties to the closest facility for low-income residents (i.e., < 200% Federal Poverty Level), compared to non-low-income residents.

RESULTS: We identified that in 954 counties (207 metropolitan counties and 747 nonmetropolitan counties) representing over 14% of the US population, low-income residents have poorer access to health care facilities. Our analyses demonstrate the high prevalence of structural disparities in health care access across the entire US, which contribute to the perpetuation of disparities in health care outcomes.

Hearing loss is a major public health concern, affecting over 30 million Americans. Few adults who could benefit from hearing aids use them. Hearing aids are now available over-the-counter (OTC) for persons with perceived mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Community pharmacies will sell OTC hearing aids to increase public access to hearing healthcare. The purpose of this study was to describe pharmacist awareness, interest, and readiness to offer OTC hearing aids at community pharmacies. A multiple-item online survey was designed using the Theory of Planned Behavior and responses were collected from licensed pharmacists from July 2021 to December 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the 97 responses collected. Most respondents were not aware of the upcoming OTC hearing aid availability. Most respondents were somewhat or very interested in increasing their knowledge on OTC hearing aids, selling OTC hearing aids, and assisting patients with OTC hearing aid selection. Most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had the necessary knowledge to counsel patients on OTC hearing aids. The most reported supporting factor was training and educational resources. OTC hearing aids are a unique public health initiative which will expand patient access to hearing health care to community pharmacies.

In 2017, the United States Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act created a new category of hearing aids to be sold over the counter (OTC), disrupting how nearly 30 million persons with hearing loss will seek and purchase hearing aids. Laws and regulations do not require a medical evaluation or an appointment with an audiologist prior to purchasing OTC hearing aids. However, it is likely that patients will approach pharmacists with questions about OTC hearing aids when considering these devices available at the community pharmacy. The objective of this commentary is to discuss the opportunity for collaborative working relationships between pharmacists and audiologists in the context of OTC hearing aids. The most relevant barriers to pharmacist/audiologist collaboration are turf concerns, lack of trust, and distance between practice sites. OTC hearing aids can positively impact hearing health care across the nation with successful collaboration between the professions of pharmacy and audiology.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy accessibility is key for the emerging role of community pharmacists as providers of patient-centered, medication management services in addition to traditional dispensing roles.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify population access to community pharmacies across the United States.

METHODS: We obtained addresses for pharmacy locations in the United States from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs and geocoded each. For a 1% sample of a U.S. synthetic population, we calculated the driving distance to the closest pharmacy using ArcGIS. We estimated the proportion of population living within 1, 2, 5, and 10 miles of a community pharmacy. We quantified the role of chain vs regional franchises or independently owned pharmacies in providing access across degrees of urbanicity.

RESULTS: We identified 61,715 pharmacies, including 37,954 (61.5%) chains, 23,521 (38.1%) regional franchises or independently owned pharmacies, and 240 (0.4%) government pharmacies. In large metropolitan areas, 62.8% of the pharmacies were chains; however, in rural areas, 76.5% of pharmacies were franchises or independent pharmacies. Across the overall U.S. population, 48.1% lived within 1 mile of any pharmacy, 73.1% within 2 miles, 88.9% within 5 miles, and 96.5% within 10 miles. Across the United States, 8.3% of counties had at least 50% of residents with a distance greater than 10 miles. These low-access counties were concentrated in Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.

CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies may serve as accessible locations for patient-centered, medication management services that enhance the health and wellness of communities. Although chain pharmacies represent the majority of pharmacy locations across the country, access to community pharmacies in rural areas predominantly relies on regional franchises and independently owned pharmacies.