Manufacturer Revenue on Inhalers After Expiration of Primary Patents, 2000-2021

This study quantifies the revenue earned on all brand-name inhalers approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2021 and compared earnings before and after expiration of primary patents on these products.

Gastrointestinal prophylaxis for COVID-19: an illustration of severe bias arising from inappropriate comparators in observational studies

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to use setting-appropriate comparisons to estimate the effects of different gastrointestinal (GI) prophylaxis pharmacotherapies for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and setting-inappropriate comparisons to illustrate how improper design choices could result in biased results.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified 3,804 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 from March to November 2020. We compared the effects of different gastroprotective agents on clinical improvement of COVID-19, as measured by a published severity scale. We used propensity score-based fine-stratification for confounding adjustment. Based on guidelines, we prespecified comparisons between agents with clinical equipoise and inappropriate comparisons of users vs. nonusers of GI prophylaxis in the intensive care unit (ICU).

RESULTS

No benefit was detected when comparing oral famotidine to omeprazole in patients treated in the general ward or ICUs. We also found no associations when comparing intravenous famotidine to intravenous pantoprazole. For inappropriate comparisons of users vs. nonusers in the ICU, the probability of improvement was reduced by 32%-45% in famotidine users and 21%-48% in omeprazole or pantoprazole users.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that GI prophylaxis improved outcomes for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in setting-appropriate comparisons. An improper comparator choice can lead to spurious associations in critically ill patients.

Assessment of Prices for Cardiovascular Tests and Procedures at Top-Ranked US Hospitals

This cross-sectional study describes variation in prices for common cardiovascular tests and procedures, both between and within top-ranked US hospitals.

Brand-name market exclusivity for nebulizer therapy to treat asthma and COPD

Nebulizer therapy is a cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We collected and analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities on brand-name nebulizer solutions approved for asthma and COPD from 1986–2020, quantified periods of protection from generic competition, and compared the patenting strategies employed by manufacturers of nebulizer versus inhaler therapy. The median duration of expected protection from generic competition for brand-name nebulizer solutions (n=13) was 7 years (after subtracting time lost to early generic entry), compared to 14 years for inhalers (n=53). Through the end of 2020, brand-name nebulizers faced generic competition for 62% of all follow-up time compared to 0.5% for inhalers. Unlike inhaler manufacturers, which relied heavily on device patents to build extensive patent thickets, manufacturers of nebulizer solutions listed fewer patents overall and relied more on non-device patents. Regulatory reform is critical to help ensure that patients have access to affordable inhaled medications.

Patents And Regulatory Exclusivities On Inhalers For Asthma And COPD, 1986-2020

Inhalers are the mainstay of treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These products face limited generic competition in the US and remain expensive. To better understand the strategies that brand-name inhaler manufacturers have employed to preserve their market dominance, we analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities granted to inhalers approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1986 and 2020. Of the sixty-two inhalers approved, fifty-three were brand-name products, and these brand-name products had a median of sixteen years of protection from generic competition. Only one inhaler contained an ingredient with a new mechanism of action. More than half of all patents were on the inhaler devices, not the active ingredients or other aspects of these drug-device combinations. Manufacturers augmented periods of brand-name market exclusivity by moving active ingredients from one inhaler device into another ("device hops"). The median time from approval of an originator product to the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity of branded follow-ons was twenty-eight years (across device hops on fourteen originator products). Regulatory and patent reform is critical to ensure that the rewards bestowed on brand-name inhaler manufacturers better reflect the added clinical benefit of new products.

Coverage of New Drugs in Medicare Part D

Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives.

CONTEXT

Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs.

METHODS

We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway.

FINDINGS

The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Practicalities of Impracticability: An Interim Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Impracticability is an ethical standard for waiver of informed consent in research. We examine how well the criterion of impracticability appears to have been fulfilled in a set of 36 completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that secured consent from some subjects or LARs and employed waivers to enroll others. These trials were identified among 155 RCTs using waivers of consent in a convenience sample drawn from 7 systematic reviews. Recruitment data were available for 19 of the 36 trials, revealing an average of 41.6% of subjects (range 0.2-98.7%, 95% CI: 24.8-58.4%) were enrolled without consent. Six trials enrolled less than 10% of subjects without consent and an overlapping set of 9 trials sought consent from all subjects or LARs at some sites while waiving consent at other sites. We question whether these trials were practicable without waivers and identify issues for consideration by investigators and ethics review boards.

Payer-Specific Negotiated Prices for Prescription Drugs at Top-Performing US Hospitals

This cross-sectional study analyzes a group of top-performing hospitals to quantify drug pricing variation across insurers.

Competition law and pricing among biologic drugs: the case of VEGF therapy for retinal diseases

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease and is a leading cause of vision loss in the Western world. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors have become a mainstay of treatment for this disease. Currently, treatment options include three originator biologics with approvals for neovascular AMD (aflibercept, ranibizumab, and brolucizumab-dbll) and one biologic that is commonly used off-label for the condition (bevacizumab). In the USA, Medicare spending on these drugs consistently surpassed $4 billion per year between 2015 and 2019, driven by high prices and varying off-label use of bevacizumab, which is substantially cheaper than the other biologics used to treat neovascular AMD. In this article, we discuss how legal reform can improve market competition for biologic drugs, using AMD therapies as a case study. We chose this group of drugs for their significant contribution to Medicare spending, the price difference between approved therapies and intravitreal bevacizumab, and because there currently exists a large biosimilar pipeline with many drug candidates in the final stage of development. We propose mechanisms for anticipating and facilitating the market introduction of biosimilars, as well as changes to the pricing model in Medicare that can promote use of cost-effective therapies. Reforms such as empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices may help ensure that introduction of new biologics and biosimilars for AMD will lower spending and increase patient access.

Association Between USMLE Step 1 Scores and In-Training Examination Performance: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

On February 12, 2020, the sponsors of the United States Medical Licensing Examination announced that Step 1 will transition to pass/fail scoring in 2022. Step 1 performance has historically carried substantial weight in the evaluation of residency applicants and as a predictor of subsequent subject-specific medical knowledge. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors sought to determine the association between Step 1 scores and in-training examination (ITE) performance, which is often used to assess knowledge acquisition during residency.

METHOD

The authors systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science for observational studies published from 1992 through May 10, 2020. Observational studies reporting associations between Step 1 and ITE scores, regardless of medical or surgical specialty, were eligible for inclusion. Pairs of researchers screened all studies, evaluated quality assessment using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and extracted data in a standardized fashion. The primary endpoint was the correlation of Step 1 and ITE scores.

RESULTS

Of 1,432 observational studies identified, 49 were systematically reviewed and 37 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall study quality was low to moderate. The pooled estimate of the correlation coefficient was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.48; P < .001), suggesting a weak-to-moderate positive correlation between Step 1 and ITE scores. The random-effects meta-regression found the association between Step 1 and ITE scores was weaker for surgical (versus medical) specialties (beta -0.25 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.09; P = .003]) and fellowship (versus residency) training programs (beta -0.25 [95% CI: -0.47, -0.03; P = .030]).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified a weak-to-moderate positive correlation between Step 1 and ITE scores based on a meta-analysis of low-to-moderate quality observational data. With Step 1 scoring transitioning to pass/fail, the undergraduate and graduate medical education communities should continue to develop better tools for evaluating medical students.

Medicare Spending on Drugs With Accelerated Approval, 2015-2019

This article examines the budgetary implications of high-priced accelerated approval drugs by estimating Medicare spending on these drugs from 2015 through 2019.

Influenza Vaccine Uptake in the Year After Concurrent vs Separate Influenza and Zoster Immunization

IMPORTANCE

Fewer than half of US adults receive the influenza vaccine each year; many cite concerns about side effects, which occur infrequently. By contrast, the recombinant zoster vaccine causes systemic side effects in a large proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether concurrent administration of the influenza and zoster vaccines was associated with a reduced likelihood of influenza vaccination in the subsequent year.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients aged 50 years or older who received the influenza vaccine between August 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, and received the zoster vaccine on the same day or separately (within the prior 180 days). Data were gathered from a national claims database of patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage plans. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for baseline demographic characteristics, comorbidities, influenza vaccine month and location (pharmacy vs medical office), and health care use (including influenza vaccination in the prior year).

EXPOSURES

Concurrent vs separate influenza and zoster vaccine administration.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Receipt of the influenza vaccine in the subsequent year (August 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020).

RESULTS

Among 89 237 individuals included in this study, the median age was 72 years (IQR, 67-77 years), 58.3% were women, 70.1% were White, and 85.7% had at least 1 comorbidity. Influenza vaccine uptake in 2019-2020 was lower among 27 161 individuals who received concurrent influenza and zoster vaccines compared with the 62 076 individuals who received the vaccines on separate days (87.3% vs 91.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78; P < .001). Results were similar across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this cohort study suggest that concurrent administration of influenza and zoster vaccines was associated with a reduction in receipt of the influenza vaccine the following year. One possible explanation is that some patients could have misattributed systemic side effects caused by the zoster vaccine to the influenza vaccine. It may be preferable to administer these 2 vaccines separately or enhance patient counseling about expected vaccine side effects.

Correlation Between Changes in Brand-Name Drug Prices and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs

IMPORTANCE

List prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.

EXPOSURES

Change in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Change in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.

RESULTS

Among 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Some commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.

A Multi-modal Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Programs

INTRODUCTION

Since 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration has had the authority to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. Such programs can include requirements for patient monitoring, restrictions on dispensing or administration, and physician and pharmacy training and certification. However, there has been only scattered evidence on the impact of REMS programs on informed decision making, medication access, or patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to describe a study that researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School will conduct in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology to investigate systematically how REMS programs have operated in practice.

METHODS

Investigations include health insurance claims-based analyses to understand patterns of drug use, adherence to safety requirements, and patient outcomes under REMS programs; surveys and interviews to understand physician and patient experiences with REMS; and REMS program material-based and interview-based analyses to understand the effectiveness of risk communication in REMS programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These research activities will evaluate the performance of REMS programs, provide information on the benefits and burdens to patients and healthcare providers, and generate recommendations for actionable steps to improve REMS programs overall.

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study

Objectives

To estimate additional spending if NHS England paid the same prices as US Medicare Part D for the 50 single-source brand-name drugs with the highest expenditure in English primary care in 2018.

Design

Retrospective analysis of 2018 drug prescribing and spending in the NHS England prescribing data and the Medicare Part D Drug Spending Dashboard and Data. We examined the 50 costliest drugs in English primary care available as brand-name-only in the US and England. We performed cost projections of NHS England spending with US Medicare Part D prices. We estimated average 2018 US rebates as 1 minus the quotient of net divided by gross Medicare Part D spending.

Setting

England and US

Participants

NHS England and US Medicare systems

Main outcome measures

Total spending, prescriptions and claims in NHS England and Medicare Part D. All spending and cost measures were reported in 2018 British pounds.

Results

NHS England spent £1.39 billion on drugs in the cohort. All drugs were more expensive under US Medicare Part D than NHS England. The US–England price ratios ranged from 1.3 to 9.9 (mean ratio 4.8). Accounting for prescribing volume, if NHS England had paid US Medicare Part D prices after adjusting for estimated US rebates, it would have spent 4.6 times as much in 2018 on drugs in the cohort (£6.42 billion).

Conclusions

Spending by NHS England would be substantially higher if it paid US Medicare Part D prices. This could result in decreased access to medicines and other health services.

Empirical Assessment of COVID-19 Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines

Background

Several states have released Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) guidelines for the allocation of scarce critical care resources. Most guidelines rely on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to maximize lives saved, but states have adopted different stances on whether to maximize long-term outcomes (life-years saved) by accounting for patient comorbidities.

Methods

We compared 4 representative state guidelines with varying approaches to comorbidities and analyzed how CSC prioritization correlates with clinical outcomes. We included 27 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs at Brigham and Women's Hospital from March 12 to April 3, 2020. We compared prioritization algorithms from New York, which assigns priority based on SOFA alone; Maryland, which uses SOFA plus severe comorbidities; Pennsylvania, which uses SOFA plus major and severe comorbidities; and Colorado, which uses SOFA plus a modified Charlson comorbidity index.

Results

In pairwise comparisons across all possible pairs, we found that state guidelines frequently resulted in tie-breakers based on age or lottery: New York 100% of the time (100% resolved by lottery), Pennsylvania 86% of the time (18% by lottery), Maryland 93% of the time (35% by lottery), and Colorado: 32% of the time (10% by lottery). The prioritization algorithm with the strongest correlation with 14-day outcomes was Colorado (r_s = -0.483. p = 0.011) followed by Maryland (r_s = -0.394, p =0.042), Pennsylvania (r_s = -0.382, p = 0.049), and New York (r_s = 0). An alternative model using raw SOFA scores alone was moderately correlated with outcomes (r_s = -0.448, p = 0.019).

Conclusions

State guidelines for scarce resource allocation frequently resulted in identical priority scores, requiring tie-breakers based on age or lottery. These findings suggest that state CSC guidelines should be further assessed empirically to understand whether they meet their goals.

Estimation of Medicare Part D Spending on Insulin for Patients With Diabetes Using Negotiated Prices and a Defined Formulary

This economic evaluation estimates insulin savings that would result if Medicare Part D used US Department of Veterans Affairs–negotiated prices and the Veterans Affairs formulary for patients with diabetes.

Potential Medicare Savings on Inhaler Prescriptions Through the Use of Negotiated Prices and a Defined Formulary

This study examines the estimated cost of asthma inhalers for individuals treated under Medicare Part B compared with those treated under the Veterans Affairs Health System, taking into account separate approaches to price negotiation.

Surrogate Endpoints and Drug Regulation: What Is Needed to Clarify the Evidence

The FDA's new table of surrogate endpoints used for drug approvals is an important step forward for overseeing the use of biomarkers in clinical trials. Nevertheless, we present several ways in which the table can be improved.