RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV , Metformina , Adulto , Humanos , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Glicemia , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1 , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medicare , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/uso terapêutico , Compostos de Sulfonilureia/uso terapêutico , Dipeptidil Peptidases e Tripeptidil Peptidases/uso terapêutico , Sódio/análise , Sódio/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe national changes in utilization and associated costs of antidiabetic medications in the United States from 2014 to 2019, across different drug classes and insurance plans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined administrative claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Patients aged 18 years and above enrolled in commercial, Medicare, or Medicaid health plans who filled ≥1 prescription claim for an antidiabetic medication(s) during the 6-year period were included. Utilization was examined as the total number of 30-day adjusted prescription fills per user per month (PUPM). Gross costs were calculated as the sum of plan costs (net of rebates) and member out-of-pocket costs. Differences in mean utilization and costs PUPM between 2014 and 2019 for each medication class were calculated. RESULTS: The final analytic sample increased from 745,290 patients in 2014 to 1,596,006 in 2019. Antidiabetic medication utilization increased by 8.8% from 2014 to 2019, driven by increases in sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (48.7%; P<0.001), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (11.8%; P<0.001), insulin (8.1%; P<0.001), and metformin (2.9%; P<0.05) utilization. Average costs PUPM rose 47.5% (P<0.001), from $126.52 in 2014 to $186.58 in 2019. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and combination drugs contributed significantly to these increased costs, with 6-year cost differences of 57.3%, 46.9%, and 47.2%, respectively (all P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a shift in antidiabetic medication class utilization from 2014 to 2019, where associated costs net of rebates significantly increased to a disproportionately greater extent than the significant increase in utilization PUPM.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Hipoglicemiantes/economia , Insulina/economia , Adulto , Idoso , Estudos Transversais , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economia , Custos de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Seguro de Serviços Farmacêuticos , Masculino , Medicaid , Medicare , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Because of improved clinical outcomes, recent American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend the use of newer antidiabetic agents-glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)-by those with cardiovascular disease. It is unclear, however, how switching to these newer agents affects health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization and costs between users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) who switch to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i and nonswitchers. METHODS: We used claims data from a large pharmacy benefit manager. Patients included were commercially insured adults with type 2 diabetes and a prescription claim for DPP-4i in 2016 or 2017. Using propensity score methods, we matched patients who switched to SGLT2i or GLP-1RA with those who remained on DPP-4i. Among matched samples, we conducted multivariable negative binomial regression to examine differences in the incidence of inpatient and emergency room (ER) visits and generalized linear regression to examine differences in health care costs. RESULTS: Among 47,953 patients who used DPP-4i in 2016 and 2017, 507 switched to SGLT2i and 808 switched to GLP-1RA. Propensity score matching of 1:6 resulted in 3,042 nonswitchers/507 switchers for the SGLT2i cohort and 4,848 nonswitchers/808 switchers for the GLP-1RA cohort. Switchers to SGLT2i experienced a 39% reduction (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.96), and GLP-1RA switchers experienced a 29% reduction (IRR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.52-0.97) in inpatient hospitalizations. ER visit rates did not differ significantly between switchers and nonswitchers. Switchers to SGLT2i did not have statistically significant differences in medical or pharmacy costs compared with DPP-4i users, while switchers to GLP-1RA had significantly higher total pharmacy costs (adjusted difference of $2,453.10, 95% CI = $1,837.20-$3,069.00). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from DPP-4i to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i was associated with fewer hospitalizations; however, higher pharmacy costs may outweigh savings from reduced hospitalizations, especially for GLP-1RAs. As newer diabetes guidelines steer specific populations to these drug classes, it is important to optimize drug pricing to realize their true value. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Neilson, Good, Swart, and Huang are employees of UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Care. Parekh reports employment at UPMC until July 2019. Munshi and Henderson are employed by Express Scripts. Newman has no disclosures to report.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Análise Custo-Benefício , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/economia , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/economia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/economia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
In an effort to demonstrate measurable value of pharmaceuticals in the United States, many payers and drug manufacturers have entered into value-based purchasing contracts that link payment for prescription medications to patient outcomes, creating shared risk between the 2 entities. These agreements have emerged as part of a larger movement within the health care landscape to transition away from volume-based payment models and towards value-based designs that promote high-quality and affordable care. Key to the success of pharmaceutical value-based contracting is agreement on meaningful and measurable outcomes that reflect drug performance. Traditional value-based contracts are developed by pharmaceutical companies and payers and may not reflect values of other important stakeholders, such as patients, providers, and employers (when applicable). One approach to more effectively align the interests of all key stakeholders and to maximize the effect and transparency of value-based pharmaceutical contracts is to use the validated Delphi surveying technique, which can gather information and build stakeholder consensus on key elements before contract development. In this Viewpoints article, we describe our experience conducting Delphi studies in 5 disease contexts to inform pharmaceutical value-based contract development, including insights learned and practical considerations for real-world application. In addition, we outline advantages to using this validated consensus-building tool to solicit vital and underrepresented stakeholder input, foster transparency in the contract development process, and promote shared learning for future value-based initiatives. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. All authors are or were employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of this study and have no other disclosures to declare.