Publications

BACKGROUND: Examine baseline factors associated with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) within 12 months postdischarge among opioid-naïve patients who received an opioid prescription in the inpatient setting.

DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort (surgery and nonsurgery) study of opioid-naive patients who had at least one prescription for an opioid during an inpatient hospitalist between 2014 and 2017.

PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three thousand and thirty-three patients were included.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine baseline factors associated with a new OUD diagnosis within 12 months of discharge. Baseline covariates included demographic information, clinical characteristics, medication use, characteristics related to index hospital encounter, and discharge location.

FINDINGS: 2.1% of the sample had a new diagnosis of OUD within a year after receiving an opioid during hospital admission. Patients between ages 25 and 34 had higher odds of a new OUD diagnosis compared to those 65 years of age and older (odds ratio [OR]: 6.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.02-12.1 [nonsurgery] and 4.69, 95% CI: 2.63-8.37 [surgery]). Patients from a high opioid geo-rank region had higher odds of OUD diagnosis (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.31-3.31 [nonsurgery] and 1.80, 95% CI: 1.03-3.15 [surgery]). History of nonopioid-related drug disorder, tobacco use disorder, mental health conditions, and gabapentin use 12 months prior to index date and white race were associated with higher odds of new OUD diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS: It is important to identify and evaluate factors associated with developing a new diagnosis of OUD following hospitalization. This can inform pain management strategies within the hospital and at discharge, and prompt clinicians to screen for risk of OUD.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become widely used for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin, the standard of care prior to DOACs, requires monitoring and dose adjustment to ensure patients remain appropriately anticoagulated. DOACs do not require monitoring but are significantly more expensive. We sought to examine real-world effectiveness and costs of DOACs and warfarin in patients with AF and VTE. OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical objectives were to determine the bleeding and thrombotic event rates associated with DOACs vs warfarin. The economic objectives were to determine the cost associated with these events, as well as the all-cause medical and pharmacy costs associated with DOACs vs warfarin. METHODS: This analysis was an observational, propensity-matched comparison of retrospective medical and pharmacy claims data for members enrolled in an integrated health plan between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2020. Members who were older than 18 years of age with at least 1 30-day supply of warfarin or a DOAC filled within 30 days of a new diagnosis of VTE or nonvalvular AF were eligible for the analysis. Cox hazard ratios were used to compare differences in clinical outcomes, where paired t-tests were used to evaluate economic outcomes. RESULTS: After matching, there were 893 patients in each group. Among matched members, warfarin was associated with increased risk of nonmajor bleeds relative to apixaban (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.526; P = 0.0048) and increased risk of pulmonary embolism relative to both DOACs (apixaban: HR = 1.941 [P = 0.0328]; rivaroxaban: HR = 1.833 [P = 0.0489]). No statistically significant difference was observed in hospitalizations or in length of stay between warfarin and either DOAC. The difference-in-difference (DID) in total costs of care per member per month for apixaban and rivaroxaban relative to warfarin were $801.64 (P = 0.0178) and $534.23 (P = 0.0998) more, respectively. DID in VTE-related cost for apixaban was $177.09 less, relative to warfarin (P = 0.0098). DID in all-cause pharmacy costs for apixaban and rivaroxaban relative to warfarin were $342.47 (P < 0.0001) and $386.42 (P < 0.001) more, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin use was associated with a significant decrease in total cost of care despite a significant increase in VTE-related costs vs apixaban. Warfarin was also associated with a significant increase in other nonmajor bleeds relative to apixaban, as well as a significant increase in pulmonary embolism relative to both DOACs. Warfarin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause pharmacy cost compared with either DOAC. DISCLOSURES: The authors of this study have nothing to disclose.

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.