The international generalisability of evidence for health policy: A cross country comparison of medication adherence following policy change.

Copayments for prescriptions may increase morbidity and mortality via reductions in adherence to medications. Relevant data can inform policy to minimise such unintended effects. We explored the generalisability of evidence for copayments by comparing two international copayment polices, one in Massachusetts and one in Ireland, to assess whether effects on medication adherence were comparable. We used national prescription data for public health insurance programmes in Ireland and Medicaid data in the U.S. New users of oral anti-hypertensive, anti-hyperlipidaemic and diabetic drugs were included (total n=14,259 in U.S. and n=43,843 in Ireland). We examined changes in adherence in intervention and comparator groups in each setting using segmented linear regression with generalised estimating equations. In Massachusetts, a gradual decrease in adherence to anti-hypertensive medications of -1% per month following the policy occurred. In contrast, the response in Ireland was confined to a -2.9% decrease in adherence immediately following the policy, with no further decrease over the 8 month follow-up. Reductions in adherence to oral diabetes drugs were larger in the U.S. group in comparison to the Irish group. No difference in adherence changes between the two settings for anti-hyperlipidaemic drugs occurred. Evidence on cost-sharing for prescription medicines is not 'one size fits all'. Time since policy implementation and structural differences between health systems may influence the differential impact of copayment policies in international settings

The international generalisability of evidence for health policy: a cross country comparison of medication adherence following policy change

Copayments for prescriptions may increase morbidity and mortality via reductions in adherence to medications. Relevant data can inform policy to minimise such unintended effects. We explored the generalisability of evidence for copayments by comparing two international copayment polices, one in Massachusetts and one in Ireland, to assess whether effects on medication adherence were comparable. We used national prescription data for public health insurance programmes in Ireland and Medicaid data in the U.S. New users of oral anti-hypertensive, anti-hyperlipidaemic and diabetic drugs were included (total n = 14,259 in U.S. and n = 43,843 in Ireland). We examined changes in adherence in intervention and comparator groups in each setting using segmented linear regression with generalised estimating equations. In Massachusetts, a gradual decrease in adherence to anti-hypertensive medications of −1% per month following the policy occurred. In contrast, the response in Ireland was confined to a −2.9% decrease in adherence immediately following the policy, with no further decrease over the 8 month follow-up. Reductions in adherence to oral diabetes drugs were larger in the U.S. group in comparison to the Irish group. No difference in adherence changes between the two settings for anti-hyperlipidaemic drugs occurred. Evidence on cost-sharing for prescription medicines is not ‘one size fits all’. Time since policy implementation and structural differences between health systems may influence the differential impact of copayment policies in international settings

A cross-national comparison of 17 countries' insulin glargine drug labels

Purpose: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will require insulin, and the evidence-based use of insulin is described in the prescription drug label. Product labels in different countries may provide inconsistent information. We evaluated the variability in drug label content for one brand of basal insulin across diverse settings. Methods: We examined the drug label content pertinent to effective and safe use of insulin glargine across 17 countries: Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, UK, and the USA. We compared label characteristics in settings where drug labels were governed by a local regulatory authority versus countries where labels were administered by a regional body or adopted from another locale. Results: All 17 labels cautioned that providers should consider age, illness, diet, and exercise when prescribing. Only two (12%) described care of the fasting patient. Caution was urged for patients with renal or hepatic impairment in 16 (94%) labels. Four (24%) did not describe responses to missed doses, and five (29%) failed to recommend patient counseling about the risk of hypoglycemia. Labels emerging from regional or adopted regulatory bodies reported fewer patients in efficacy studies than did labels from settings with their own drug regulatory agencies $(365 \pm 0$ patients vs. $3560 \pm 2938, p = 0.04)$. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in the content of drug labels for glargine, which may lead to international inconsistency in quality of care for diabetic patients.Other Research Uni

Trends in Insulin Initiation and Treatment Intensification Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND: Many patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require insulin, yet little is known about the patterns and quality of pharmacologic care received following insulin initiation. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas be discontinued at the time of insulin initiation to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, and that treatment be intensified if HbA1c levels remain above-target 3 months after insulin initiation. OBJECTIVE: To describe pharmacologic treatment patterns over time among adults initiating insulin and/or intensifying insulin treatment. DESIGN: Observational study. SUBJECTS: A large commercially insured population of adult patients without recorded type 1 diabetes who initiated insulin. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated changes in non-insulin antidiabetic medication use during the 120 days immediately following insulin initiation, rates of increase in insulin dose and/or dosing frequency during the 270 days following an insulin initiation treatment period of 90 days, and rates of insulin discontinuation. KEY RESULTS: Seven thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two patients initiated insulin during 2003-2008, with the majority (61 %) initiating basal insulin only. Metformin (55 %), sulfonylureas (39 %), and thiazolidinediones (30 %) were commonly used prior to insulin initiation. Metformin was continued by 64 % of patients following mixed or mealtime insulin initiation; the continuation rate was nearly as high for sulfonylureas (58 %). Insulin dose and/or dosing frequency increased among 22.9 % of patients. Insulin was discontinued by 27 % of patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of substantial departures from guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Insulin secretagogues were frequently co-prescribed with insulin. The majority of patients had no evidence of treatment intensification following insulin initiation, although this finding is difficult to interpret without HbA1c levels. While each patient's care should be individualized, our data suggest that the quality of care following insulin initiation can be improved.Statistic

Despite increased use and sales of statins in India, per capita prescription rates remain far below high-income countries

Statin use has increased substantially in North America and Europe, with resultant reductions in cardiovascular mortality. However, little is known about statin use in lower-income countries. India is of interest because of its burden of cardiovascular disease, the unique nature of its prescription drug market, and the growing globalization of drug sales. We conducted an observational study using IMS Health data for the period February 2006–January 2010. During the period, monthly statin prescriptions increased from 45.8 to 84.1 per 1,000 patients with coronary heart disease—an increase of 0.80 prescriptions per month. The proportion of the Indian population receiving a defined daily statin dose increased from 3.35 percent to 7.78 percent. Nevertheless, only a fraction of those eligible for a statin appeared to receive the therapy, even though there were 259 distinct statin products available to Indian consumers in January 2010. Low rates of statin use in India may reflect problems with access to health care, affordability, underdiagnosis, and cultural beliefs. Because of the growing burden of cardiovascular disease in lower-income countries such as India, there is an urgent need to increase statin use and ensure access to safe products whose use is based on evidence. Policies are needed to expand insurance, increase medications’ affordability, educate physicians and patients, and improve regulatory oversight.Statistic

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Use and Perioperative Bleeding and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: Several small studies have reported inconsistent findings about the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to investigate post-CABG bleeding and mortality outcomes related to antidepressant exposure. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent CABG between 2004 and 2008 in the Premier Perspective Comparative Database. We determined whether they received SSRIs, other antidepressants, or no antidepressants on any pre-CABG hospital day and used Cox proportional hazards models to compare bleeding and mortality rates among the exposure groups while adjusting for potential confounders based on administrative data, pre-CABG charge codes, and discharge diagnosis codes. RESULTS: We identified 132,686 eligible patients: 7112 exposed to SSRIs, 1905 exposed to other antidepressants, and 123,668 unexposed. As compared with no exposure, neither SSRIs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.07) nor other antidepressants (HR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.96-1.28) increased major bleeds, and neither SSRIs (HR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.80-1.07) nor other antidepressants (HR 0.84; 95 % CI 0.62-1.14) increased mortality. Both SSRIs (HR 1.14; 95 % CI 1.10-1.18) and other antidepressants (HR 1.11; 95 % CI 1.03-1.19) were associated with a slight increase in receipt of one or more packed red blood cell (pRBC) units, but neither were associated with substantial increases in receipt of three or more pRBC units (HR 1.06; 95 % CI 0.96-1.17 for SSRIs; HR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.91-1.31 for other antidepressants). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort study, neither SSRIs nor other antidepressants were associated with elevated rates of major bleed, or in-hospital mortality.Statistic

Comparative Effectiveness of Generic and Brand-Name Statins on Patient Outcomes

Background: Statins are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, but patients do not fully adhere to them. Objective: To determine whether patients are more adherent to generic statins versus brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes. Design: Observational, propensity score–matched, new-user cohort study. Setting: Linked electronic data from medical and pharmacy claims. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with prescription drug coverage between 2006 and 2008. Intervention: Initiation of a generic or brand-name statin. Measurements: Adherence to statin therapy (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC] up to 1 year) and a composite outcome comprising hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome or stroke and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute rate differences were estimated. Results: A total of 90 111 patients who initiated a statin during the study was identified; 83 731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug. The mean age of patients was 75.6 years, and most (61%) were female. The average PDC was 77% for patients in the generic group and 71% for those in the brand-name group (P < 0.001). An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). The absolute difference was −1.53 events per 100 person-years (CI, −2.69 to −0.19 events per 100 person-years). Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to other populations with different incomes or drug benefit structures. Conclusion: Compared with those initiating brand-name statins, patients initiating generic statins were more likely to adhere and had a lower rate of a composite clinical outcome. Primary Funding Source: Teva Pharmaceuticals.African and African American Studie

Comparative effectiveness of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic medications

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare treatment persistence and rates of seizure-related events in patients who initiate antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy with a generic versus a brand-name product. METHODS: We used linked electronic medical and pharmacy claims data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who initiated one of five AEDs (clonazepam, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, zonisamide). We matched initiators of generic versus brand-name versions of these drugs using a propensity score that accounted for demographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare rates of seizure-related emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization (primary outcome) and ER visit for bone fracture or head injury (secondary outcome) between the matched generic and brand-name initiators. We also compared treatment persistence, measured as time to first 14-day treatment gap, between generic and brand-name initiators. RESULTS: We identified 19,760 AED initiators who met study eligibility criteria; 18,306 (93%) initiated a generic AED. In the matched cohort, we observed 47 seizure-related hospitalizations and ER visits among brand-name initiators and 31 events among generic initiators, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.96). Similar results were observed for the secondary clinical endpoint and across sensitivity analyses. Mean time to first treatment gap was 124.2days (standard deviation [sd], 125.8) for brand-name initiators and 137.9 (sd, 148.6) for generic initiators. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients who initiated generic AEDs had fewer adverse seizure-related clinical outcomes and longer continuous treatment periods before experiencing a gap than those who initiated brand-name versions.Other Research Uni