Search

Background: The prevalence of exposure to pharmacogenomic medications is well established but little is known about how long patients are exposed to these medications. Aim: Our objective was to describe the amount of exposure to actionable pharmacogenomic medications using patient-level measures among a large nationally representative population using an insurance claims database. Methods: Our retrospective cohort study included adults (18+ years) from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics claims database with incident fills of 72 Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium level A, A/B, or B medications from January 2012 through September 2018. Patient-level outcomes included the proportion of days covered (PDC), number of fills, and average days supplied per fill over a 12-month period. Results: Over 1 million fills of pharmacogenetic medications were identified for 605,355 unique patients. The mean PDC for all medications was 0.21 (SD 0.3), suggesting patients were exposed 21% (77 days) of the year. Medications with the highest PDC (0.55–0.89) included ivacaftor, tamoxifen, clopidogrel, HIV medications, transplant medications, and statins; with the exception of statins, these medications were initiated by fewer patients. Pharmacogenomic medications were filled an average of 2.8 times (SD 3.0, range 1–81) during the year following the medication's initiation, and the average days supplied for each fill was 22.3 days (SD 22.4, range 1–180 days). Conclusion: Patient characteristics associated with more medication exposure were male sex, older age, and comorbid chronic conditions. Prescription fill data provide patient-level exposure metrics that can further our understanding of pharmacogenomic medication utilization and help inform opportunities for pharmacogenomic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) present a serious public health problem. Limited treatment options has led to increased use of colistin and polymyxin. Since 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 4 new beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor (BLBLI) combination antibiotics with activity against CROs. These new antibiotics have been shown to be more effective and less toxic than colistin and polymyxin but are considerably more expensive. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the new BLBLIs versus colistin-based therapy for the treatment of CROs. Methods: A decision-tree microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the new BLBLIs versus colistin-based therapy for the treatment of CROs. Treatment groups differed in risk of mortality and risk of an acute kidney injury (AKI). The relative risk of mortality was determined by creating a meta-analysis comparing new BLBLIs to colistin. Cost inputs included medication costs and the cost to treat an AKI. The primary outcomes include quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model inputs included: clinical outcomes and adverse events (30-day mortality and AKI); cost of treatment and adverse drug events; and health utilities. A 3% discount was applied for outcomes. A lifetime horizon was used from the perspective of the US healthcare system with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000. A sensitivity analysis was done to incorporate uncertainty. Results: The meta-analysis found the treatment with a new BLBLI was associated with a 50% decrease in the relative risk of 30-day mortality compared to colistin (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.88). Treatment with a new BLBLI cost $16 200 and produced 11.5 QALYs, on average. The average colistin based regimen cost $3500 and produced 8.3 QALYs. The new BLBLIs were determined to be cost-effective with an ICER of $3900 per QALY gained. Treatment with a BLBLI remained cost-effective under all uncertainty scenarios tested. Conclusion: New BLBLIs are cost-effective compared to colistin for the treatment of CROs and are associated with improved mortality and fewer AKI events. The use of colistin should be reserved for cases where new BLBLIs are not available or there is documented resistance to these new antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a widely used, safe, and cost-effective treatment. Most public and private insurance providers require prior authorization (PA) for OPAT, yet the impact of the inpatient PA process is not known. Our aim was to characterize discharge barriers and PA delays associated with high-priced OPAT antibiotics. Methods This was an institutional review board–approved study of adult patients discharged with daptomycin, ceftaroline, ertapenem, and novel beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations from January 2017 to December 2017. Patients with an OPAT PA delay were compared with patients without a delay. The primary endpoint was total direct hospital costs from the start of treatment. Results Two-hundred patients were included: 141 (71%) no OPAT delay vs 59 (30%) OPAT delay. More patients with a PA delay were discharged to a subacute care facility compared with an outpatient setting: 37 (63%) vs 52 (37%), P =.001. Discharge delays and median total direct hospital costs were higher for patients with OPAT delays: 31 (53%) vs 21 (15%), P <.001 and $19 576 (interquartile range [IQR], 10 056–37 038) vs $7770 (IQR, 3031–13 974), P <.001. In multiple variable regression, discharge to a subacute care facility was associated with an increased odds of discharge delay, age >64 years was associated with a decreased odds of discharge delay. Conclusions OPAT with high-priced antibiotics requires significant care coordination. PA delays are common and contribute to discharge delays. OPAT transitions of care represent an opportunity to improve patient care and address access barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]