Shah, Nilay D.

The cost of prescription drugs in the United States continues to be a source of concern for patients, caregivers, and policymakers. Drug prices typically decline rapidly once generic drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and enter the market, but the past decade has witnessed rising costs and shortages of generic drugs. We describe the strategies used by brand‐name manufacturers to undermine generic competition and the reasons underlying the price increases of off‐patent drugs, some of which continue to lack any competition from generic versions, and others that have increased in price despite having generic versions. We discuss the FDA's role in addressing drug prices and promoting competition, including recent agency policies to modify its process of reviewing generic drug applications and to prioritize applications for off‐patent drugs with few competitors. We also examine proposed policy solutions and research areas that could help address the price increases of off‐patent drugs.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the ability of claims‐based risk adjustment and incremental components of clinical data to identify 90‐day episode costs among lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) patients according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program provisions.Data SourcesMedicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) data for qualifying CJR episodes in the United States, and FFS data linked with clinical data from CJR‐qualifying LEJR episodes performed at High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) and Mayo Clinic in 2013. HVHC and Mayo Clinic populations are subsets of the total FFS population to assess the additive value of additional pieces of clinical data in correctly assigning patients to cost groups.Study DesignMultivariable logistic models identified high‐cost episodes.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsClinical data from participating health care systems merged with Medicare FFS data.Principal FindingsOur three populations consisted of 363 621 patients in the CMS population, 4881 in the HVHC population, and 918 in the Mayo population. When modeling per CJR specifications, we observed low to moderate model performance (CMS C‐Stat = 0.714; HVHC C‐Stat = 0.628; Mayo C‐Stat = 0.587). Adding CMS‐HCC categories improved identification of patients in the top 20% of episode costs (CMS C‐Stat = 0.758, HVHC C‐Stat = 0.692, Mayo C‐Stat = 0.677). Clinical variables, particularly functional status in the population for which this was available (Mayo C‐Stat = 0.783), improved ability to identify patients within cost groups.ConclusionsPolicy makers could use these findings to improve payment adjustments for bundled LEJR procedures and in consideration of new data elements for reimbursement.

Background Nonadherence to immunosuppression after kidney transplant is an important contributor to graft failure. Little is known about how nonadherence changes 3 years posttransplant when Medicare coverage of immunosuppression ends and how that nonadherence impacts allograft histology. The goal of this study was to compare rates of nonadherence during posttransplant years 1 to 3 to years 3 to 5 and examine the relationship between nonadherence during years 3 to 5 and 5-year allograft histology. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 552 conventional kidney allografts in patients transplanted at our center between January 1, 1999, and June 1, 2010, who used the Mayo Clinic Specialty Pharmacy for the first 5 years posttransplant. Nonadherence was defined as less than 80% proportion of days covered. Overall adherence to immunosuppression appeared to be higher during years 3 and 5 compared to between years 1 and 3 (89.4% vs 82.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001 [paired t test]). Results Overall nonadherence during posttransplant years 3 to 5 appeared to be associated with fibrosis and inflammation on 5-year allograft biopsy but not with transplant glomerulopathy (16.9% vs 5.9%, P = 0.004; 10.4% vs 8.5%, P = 0.61, respectively). After adjusting for nonadherence to calcineurin inhibitor and prednisone therapy, only nonadherence to antimetabolite therapy remained significantly associated with 5-year fibrosis and inflammation (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-76.1; P = 0.02). Conclusions Efforts to improve long-term adherence, possibly through the use of specialty pharmacies and increased adherence to antimetabolite therapy, may improve long-term allograft histology and survival, although further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

6531 Background: Annual mammography is recommended to screen residual breast tissue for new cancers and recurrent disease after treatment for early stage breast cancer. This study aimed to assess mammography rates over time in breast cancer survivors. Methods: We used administrative claims data from a large U.S. commercial insurance database, OptumLabs, to retrospectively identify privately- and Medicare Advantage-insured women with operable breast cancer who had residual breast tissue after definitive breast surgery between 2006 and 2015. We required coverage for at least 13 months following surgery. For each subsequent 13-month time period, we only included women without a loss of coverage, bilateral mastectomy, metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, or non-breast cancer diagnosis. We calculated the proportion of patients who had a mammogram during each 13-month period following breast surgery. We used multivariable logistic regression to test for factors associated with mammography in the first 13 months. Results: The cohort included 26,011 women followed for a median of 2.9 years (IQR 1.9-4.6) after surgery; 63.1% were less than 65 years of age, and 74.4% were white. In their first year of follow-up, 86% underwent mammography, but by year 7, this decreased to 73%. Fewer than 1% underwent MRI instead of mammography. In multivariable analysis, mammograms were less likely during the first year after surgery among women aged < 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 0.8), African Americans (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.8), patients who underwent mastectomy (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.7), and patients residing in the Western part of the country (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.9). Those with 1-2 comorbidities were more likely (OR, 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2) than those with none to have a mammogram during that period. Mammography use did not differ significantly by year of diagnosis (2006-2015). Conclusions: Even in an insured cohort, a substantial proportion of breast cancer survivors do not undergo annual surveillance mammography. Mammography use falls as the time from the early stage breast cancer diagnosis increases. Understanding factors associated with lack of mammographic screening may help improve survivorship care.

Background: Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on dialysis were excluded from clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent data have raised concerns regarding the safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, but apixaban has not been evaluated despite current labeling supporting its use in this population. The goal of this study was to determine patterns of apixaban use and its associated outcomes in dialysis-dependent patients with ESKD and AF. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries included in the United States Renal Data System (October 2010 to December 2015). Eligible patients were those with ESKD and AF undergoing dialysis who initiated treatment with an oral anticoagulant. Because of the small number of dabigatran and rivaroxaban users, outcomes were only assessed in patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Apixaban and warfarin patients were matched (1:3) based on prognostic score. Differences between groups in survival free of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and death were assessed using Kaplan–Meier analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were derived from Cox regression analyses. Results: The study population consisted of 25 523 patients (45.7% women; 68.2±11.9 years of age), including 2351 patients on apixaban and 23 172 patients on warfarin. An annual increase in apixaban prescriptions was observed after its marketing approval at the end of 2012, such that 26.6% of new anticoagulant prescriptions in 2015 were for apixaban. In matched cohorts, there was no difference in the risks of stroke/systemic embolism between apixaban and warfarin (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69–1.12; P =0.29), but apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.87; P <0.001). In sensitivity analyses, standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice a day; n=1034) was associated with significantly lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism and death as compared with either reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice a day; n=1317; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P =0.04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45–0.92; P =0.01 for death) or warfarin (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97; P =0.04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.85; P =0.003 for death). Conclusions: Among patients with ESKD and AF on dialysis, apixaban use may be associated with a lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin, with a standard 5 mg twice a day dose also associated with reductions in thromboembolic and mortality risk.