Search

Abstract Background Adjusting for laboratory test results may result in better confounding control when added to administrative claims data in the study of treatment effects. However, missing values can arise through several mechanisms. Methods We studied the relationship between availability of outpatient lab test results, lab values, and patient and system characteristics in a large healthcare database using LDL, HDL, and HbA1c in a cohort of initiators of statins or Vytorin (ezetimibe & simvastatin) as examples. Results Among 703,484 patients 68% had at least one lab test performed in the 6 months before treatment. Performing an LDL test was negatively associated with several patient characteristics, including recent hospitalization (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.29-0.34), MI (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.69-0.85), or carotid revascularization (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.25-0.53). Patient demographics, diagnoses, and procedures predicted well who would have a lab test performed (AUC = 0.89 to 0.93). Among those with test results available claims data explained only 14% of variation. Conclusions In a claims database linked with outpatient lab test results, we found that lab tests are performed selectively corresponding to current treatment guidelines. Poor ability to predict lab values and the high proportion of missingness reduces the added value of lab tests for effectiveness research in this setting.

Innovative medical products offer significant and potentially transformative impacts on health, but they create concerns about rising spending and whether this rise is translating into higher value. The result is increasing pressure to pay for therapies in a way that is tied to their value to stakeholders through improving outcomes, reducing disease complications, and addressing concerns about affordability. Policy responses include the growing application of health technology assessments based on available evidence to determine unit prices, as well as alternatives to volume-based payment that adjust product payments based on predictors or measures of value. Building on existing frameworks for value-based payment for health care providers, we developed an analogous framework for medical products, including drugs, devices, and diagnostic tools. We illustrate each of these types of alternative payment mechanisms and describe the conditions under which each may be useful. We discuss how the use of this framework can help track reforms, improve evidence, and advance policy analysis involving medical product payment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed a semi-automated active monitoring system that uses sequential matched-cohort analyses to assess drug safety across a distributed network of longitudinal electronic healthcare data. In a retrospective analysis, we showed that the system would have identified cerivastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis. In this study, we evaluated whether the system would generate alerts for three drug-outcome pairs: rosuvastatin and rhabdomyolysis (known null association), rosuvastatin and diabetes mellitus, and telithromycin and hepatotoxicity (two examples for which alerting would be questionable). During >5 years of monitoring, rate differences (RDs) comparing rosuvastatin to atorvastatin were -0.1 cases of rhabdomyolysis per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -0.4, 0.1) and -2.2 diabetes cases per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -6.0, 1.6). The RD for hepatotoxicity comparing telithromycin to azithromycin was 0.3 cases per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -0.5, 1.0). In a setting in which false positivity is a major concern, the system did not generate alerts for three drug-outcome pairs.

Objectives: To better understand the prevalence of US value-based payment arrangements (VBAs), their characteristics, and the factors that facilitate their success or act as barriers to their implementation., Study Design: Surveys were administered to a convenience sample of subject matter experts who were senior representatives from payer organizations and biopharmaceutical manufacturers. These data were supplemented with qualitative interviews in a subsample of survey respondents., Methods: Descriptive statistics, including percentages for categorical values and mean (SD) and median (interquartile range) for continuous variables, were assessed for quantitative questions. Trained reviewers collated responses to free-text survey questions and the qualitative interviews to identify themes., Results: Of the 25 respondents, 1 manufacturer and 4 payers reported not having explored or negotiated any VBAs. Subsequently, questionnaire results from 11 biopharmaceutical manufacturers and 9 payers who had experience with VBAs were analyzed. More than 70% of VBAs implemented between 2014 and 2017 were not publicly disclosed. Furthermore, although consideration of VBAs as a coverage and payment tool is increasing, VBA implementation is relatively low, with manufacturers and payers reporting that approximately 33% and 60% of early dialogues translate into signed VBA contracts, respectively. Respondents' reasoning for VBA negotiation process breakdowns generally differed by sector and reflected each sector's respective priorities., Conclusions: This study reveals that the majority of VBAs are not publicly disclosed, which could underestimate their true prevalence and impact. Given the effort required to implement a VBA, future arrangements would likely benefit from a framework or other evaluative tool to help assess VBA pursuit desirability and guide the negotiation and implementation process.

Background: The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, introduced as part of the Affordable Care Act, directed the FDA to create an approval pathway for biologic products shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved innovator drug. These biosimilars will not be chemically identical to the reference agent. Investigational studies conducted with biosimilar agents will likely provide limited real-world evidence of their effectiveness and safety. How do we best monitor effectiveness and safety of biosimilar products once approved by the FDA and used more extensively by patients?, Objective: To determine the feasibility of developing a distributed research network that will use health insurance plan and health delivery system data to detect biosimilar safety and effectiveness signals early and be able to answer important managed care pharmacy questions from both the government and managed care organizations., Methods: Twenty-one members of the AMCP Task Force on Biosimilar Collective Intelligence Systems met November 12, 2013, to discuss issues involved in designing this consortium and to explore next steps., Results: The task force concluded that a managed care biosimilars research consortium would be of significant value. Task force members agreed that it is best to use a distributed research network structurally similar to existing DARTNet, HMO Research Network, and Mini-Sentinel consortia. However, for some surveillance projects that it undertakes, the task force recognizes it may need supplemental data from managed care and other sources (i.e., a "hybrid" structure model)., Conclusions: The task force believes that AMCP is well positioned to lead the biosimilar-monitoring effort and that the next step to developing a biosimilar-innovator collective intelligence system is to convene an advisory council to address organizational governance.