Determinants in Initial Treatment Choice for Diabetic Macular Edema

Real-World Outcomes of Different Types of Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema Before and After Approval of Anti-Vascular Endothelium Growth Factor Agents

Background/Objectives: The object of this study was to determine the outcomes of treatments other than anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) before and after the approval of anti-VEGF therapy in Japan. Methods: This was a retrospective study registered in the database of the Survey of Treatment for DME (STREAT-DME). A total of 1683 patients treated from 2010 to 2017 were included. The patients were divided into two groups: (1) a pre-group, treated before the approval of anti-VEGF agents (2010-2013, n = 771), and (2) a post-group (2014-2017, n = 912). Each group was further categorized based on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA): (i) improved from poor (>0.3 logMAR units) to good (≤0.3 logMAR units) or (ii) decreased from good to poor. Results: In the pre-group, 18.5% of patients improved from poor to good BCVA out of the total patient population (p < 0.0001), along with 17.3% out of those administered anti-VEGF therapy (p = 0.139), 20.5% of those administered a sub-tenon injection of triamcinolone acetonide (STTA, p = 0.02), 17.7% (p = 0.20) of those administered photocoagulation, and 14.2% of those who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV, p = 0.0001). In the post-group, 21.8% had improved BCVA out of the total patient population (p < 0.0001), along with 27.2% of those undergoing anti-VEGF therapy (p < 0.0001), 16.7% of those administered STTA (p < 0.0001), and 27.2% of those who underwent PPV (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: STTA and PPV are effective to a certain extent, even after the approval of anti-VEGF agents.

Real-world socioeconomic determinants of corneal crosslinking in a national cohort

PURPOSE

To characterize recent socioeconomic trends in patients with keratoconus/corneal ectasias undergoing corneal crosslinking (CXL).

SETTING

A deidentified administrative medical claims database comprised commercial and Medicare Advantage health claims from across the United States.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

This study identified 552 patients with keratoconus/corneal ectasia who underwent CXL and 2723 matched controls who did not undergo CXL based on Current Procedural Terminology coding from a U.S. national insurance claims database from 2016 to 2020. For each patient, characteristics, including sex, race, age, household net worth, education level, insurance plan type, and geographic region, were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to determine the odds of undergoing crosslinking.

RESULTS

Age 30 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 0.34, P < .001) was associated with decreased likelihood of undergoing CXL. Sex, race, education, and patient income were not associated with odds of undergoing CXL. Patients with health maintenance organization insurance had lower odds of undergoing CXL (OR, 0.64, P = .047). Geographically, patients on the east coast (OR, 0.37, P < .001) and Lower Midwest (OR, 0.31, P < .001) had statistically lower odds of undergoing crosslinking.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to identify socioeconomic determinants of CXL, and it highlights that geographic location and insurance type may limit accessibility to patients.

Cost-sharing and adherence, clinical outcomes, health care utilization, and costs: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: US health plans are adopting benefit designs that shift greater financial burden to patients through higher deductibles, additional copay tiers, and coinsurance. Prior systematic reviews found that higher cost was associated with reductions in both appropriate and inappropriate medications. However, these reviews were conducted prior to contemporary benefit design and medication utilization. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship and factors associated with cost-sharing and (1) medication adherence, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) health care resource utilization (HRU), and (4) costs. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published between January 2010 and August 2020 was conducted to identify the relationship between cost-sharing and medication adherence, clinical outcomes, HRU, and health care costs. Data were extracted using a standardized template and were synthesized by key questions of interest. RESULTS: From 1,995 records screened, 79 articles were included. Most studies, 71 of 79 (90%), reported the relationship between cost-sharing and treatment adherence, persistence and/or discontinuation; 16 (20%) reported data on cost-sharing and HRU or medication initiation, 11 (14%) on costsharing and health care costs, and 6 (8%) on cost-sharing and clinical outcomes. The majority of publications found that, regardless of disease area, increased cost-sharing was associated with worse adherence, persistence, or discontinuation. The aggregate data suggested the greater the magnitude of cost-sharing, the worse the adherence. Among studies examining clinical outcomes, cost-sharing was associated with worse outcomes in 1 study and the remaining 3 found no significant differences. Regarding HRU, higher-cost-sharing trended toward decreased outpatient and increased inpatient utilization. The available evidence suggested higher cost-sharing has an overall neutral to negative impact on total costs. Studies evaluating elimination of copays found either decreased or no impact in total costs. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature shows consistent impacts of higher cost sharing on initiation and continuation of medications, and the greater the cost-sharing, the worse the medication adherence. The evidence is limited regarding the impact of cost-sharing on clinical outcomes, HRU, and costs. Limited evidence suggests increased cost-sharing is associated with more inpatient care and less outpatient care; however, a neutral to no difference was suggested for other outcomes. Although increased costsharing is intended to decrease total costs, studies evaluating reducing or eliminating cost-sharing found that total costs did not rise. Today's growing cost-containment environment should carefully consider the broader impact cost-sharing has on treatment adherence, clinical outcomes, resource use, and total costs. It may be that cost-sharing is a blunt, rather than precise, tool to curb health care costs, affecting both necessary and unnecessary health care use. DISCLOSURES: This study and the development of this article were funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Mr Sils is an employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council. Dr Graff is a former employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council. Drs Fusco and Kistler and Ms Ruiz are employees of Xcenda. Xcenda received funding to conduct the literature review.

Social Determinants of Health and Impact on Screening, Prevalence, and Management of Diabetic Retinopathy in Adults: A Narrative Review

Diabetic retinal disease (DRD) is the leading cause of blindness among working-aged individuals with diabetes. In the United States, underserved and minority populations are disproportionately affected by diabetic retinopathy and other diabetes-related health outcomes. In this narrative review, we describe racial disparities in the prevalence and screening of diabetic retinopathy, as well as the wide-range of disparities associated with social determinants of health (SDOH), which include socioeconomic status, geography, health-care access, and education.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Impacts of high-deductible health plans on patients with diabetes: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) as a type of consumer-directed health insurance plan aim to control unnecessary service utilization and share the responsibility in payments and care with the patient. Our objective was to systematically pool the medical and non-medical impacts of HDHPs on patients with diabetes.

METHODS

We searched databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Wiley, to identify relevant published studies. We outlined the eligibility criteria based on the study population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and types of studies (PICOT). We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published in English, including quasi-experimental, observational, and cross-sectional studies in this review. We used the narrative data synthesis method to categorize and interpret the results.

RESULTS

Initial search yielded 149 results. After removing duplicates and screening for relevant titles and abstracts, and reviewing full texts, 11 studies met eligibility criteria. Overall, diabetic patients with HDHP were less likely to adhere to treatment and prescription refills, utilize fewer healthcare services and medications, and more likely to have acute emergency visits than their counterparts enrolled in low-deductible plans. However, the results on overall healthcare costs and the final health outcome were unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that HDHPs negatively impact low-income diabetic patients by leading them to forgo preventive and primary care services and experience excessive preventable emergency department visits. The socioeconomic characteristics of patients must be considered when developing HDHP policies, and adjustments should be made to HDHPs accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness of Autonomous Point-of-Care Diabetic Retinopathy Screening for Pediatric Patients With Diabetes

Importance

Screening for diabetic retinopathy is recommended for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet screening rates remain low. Point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening using autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) has become available, providing immediate results in the clinic setting, but the cost-effectiveness of this strategy compared with standard examination is unknown.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy and its sequelae among children with T1D and T2D using AI diabetic retinopathy screening vs standard screening by an eye care professional (ECP).

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, parameter estimates were obtained from the literature from 1994 to 2019 and assessed from March 2019 to January 2020. Parameters included out-of-pocket cost for autonomous AI screening, ophthalmology visits, and treating diabetic retinopathy; probability of undergoing standard retinal examination; relative odds of undergoing screening; and sensitivity, specificity, and diagnosability of the ECP screening examination and autonomous AI screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Costs or savings to the patient based on mean patient payment for diabetic retinopathy screening examination and cost-effectiveness based on costs or savings associated with the number of true-positive results identified by diabetic retinopathy screening.

Results

In this study, the expected true-positive proportions for standard ophthalmologic screening by an ECP were 0.006 for T1D and 0.01 for T2D, and the expected true-positive proportions for autonomous AI were 0.03 for T1D and 0.04 for T2D. The base case scenario of 20% adherence estimated that use of autonomous AI would result in a higher mean patient payment ($8.52 for T1D and $10.85 for T2D) than conventional ECP screening ($7.91 for T1D and $8.20 for T2D). However, autonomous AI screening was the preferred strategy when at least 23% of patients adhered to diabetic retinopathy screening.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest that point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening using autonomous AI systems is effective and cost saving for children with diabetes and their caregivers at recommended adherence rates.