The impact of non-medical switching among ambulatory patients: an updated systematic literature review

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Modeling the Effects of Formulary Exclusions: How Many Patients Could Be Affected by a Specific Exclusion?

Background: Medication formularies, initially designed to promote the use of cost-effective generic drugs, are now designed to maximize financial benefits for the pharmacy benefit management companies that negotiate purchase prices. In the second-largest pharmacy benefit management formulary that is publicly available, 55% of mandated substitutions are not for generic or biosimilar versions of the same active ingredient and/or formulation and may not be medically or financially beneficial to patients. Methods: We modeled the effect of excluding novel agents for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, migraine prevention, and psoriasis, which all would require substitution with a different active ingredient. Using population data, market share of the 2 largest US formularies, and 2021 prescription data, we calculated how many people could be affected by such exclusions. Using data from the published literature, we calculated how many of those individuals are likely to discontinue treatment and/or have adverse events due to a formulary exclusion. Results: The number of people likely to have adverse events due to the exclusion could be as high as 1 million for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 900 000 for migraine prevention, and 500 000 for psoriasis. The numbers likely to discontinue treatment for their condition are as high as 924 000 for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 646 000 for migraine, and 138 000 for psoriasis. Conclusion: Substitution with a nonequivalent treatment is common in formularies currently in use and is not without substantial consequences for hundreds of thousands of patients. Forced medication substitution results in costly increases in morbidity and mortality and should be part of the cost-benefit analysis of any formulary exclusion.

Patient and Clinician Challenges with Anticholinergic Step Therapy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder: A Narrative Review

Anticholinergics have been used in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but their use is limited by poor tolerability and anticholinergic-related side effects. Increasingly, providers are discontinuing anticholinergic prescribing because of growing evidence of the association of anticholinergic use with increased risk of cognitive decline and other adverse effects. Newer medications for OAB, the β3-adrenergic receptor agonists mirabegron and vibegron, do not have anticholinergic properties and are typically well tolerated; however, many insurance plans have limited patient access to these newer OAB medications by requiring step therapy, meaning less expensive anticholinergic medications must be trialed and/or failed before a β3-agonist will be covered and dispensed. Thus, many patients are unable to easily access these medications. Step therapy and other drug utilization strategies (e.g., prior authorization) are often used to manage the growing costs of pharmaceuticals, but these policies do not always follow treatment guidelines and may harm patients as a result of treatment delays, discontinuations, or related increases in adverse events. Medical professionals have called for reform of drug utilization strategies through partnerships that include clinicians and policymakers. This narrative review discusses prescribing patterns for OAB treatment and the effect of switching between drugs, as well as the costs of step therapy and prior authorization on patients and prescribers.

Comparative outcomes associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin use in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation or acute venous thromboembolism managed in the United States: a systematic review of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Advancing age is a risk factor for developing non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). We assessed the comparative effectiveness, safety, costs, and healthcare utilization associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients of advanced age managed in the United States (US).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of Medline and Embase through April 2023 to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies of older adults (at least 65+ years of age) with either NVAF or VTE who received either rivaroxaban or warfarin in the US and reported an outcome of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), ischemic stroke (IS), recurrent VTE, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, costs, or healthcare resource utilization. We classified each outcome of interest per study as "positive" (lower risk), "negative" (higher risk), or "neutral" based upon the summary effect size of rivaroxaban versus warfarin.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RWE studies met inclusion criteria, mostly (83%) in NVAF populations. For SSE with rivaroxaban versus warfarin, 68.8% of studies showed positive effects and 31.2% showed neutral outcome. For major bleeding, 57.7% showed neutral effects, 38.5% showed negative effects, and 3.8% of studies showed positive effects with rivaroxaban versus warfarin. Of the two studies reporting cost data, both were positive, showing lower costs for SSE for rivaroxaban versus warfarin and neutral cost for major bleeding costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review supports findings from subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials that, compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban is associated with generally neutral or positive effects on thrombosis and a mixed picture on bleeding outcomes in older adults with either NVAF or VTE treated in the United States.

Diabetes And The Fragmented State Of US Health Care And Policy

Progress in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes-the dominant form of diabetes-appears to have stalled in the US over the past decade, and diabetes-related morbidity has increased nationally. The most geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged segments of the population have been especially hard hit, and interventions that reduce the risk for diabetes have not reached these populations. In this overview article we lay out how fragmentation in health policy and governance, payers and reimbursement design, and service delivery in the US has contributed to low accountability and coordination, and thus stagnation and persistent inequities. We also review the evidence regarding past, ongoing, and new reforms that may help address fragmentation, lower diabetes burdens, and narrow disparities.

Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review

Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.

Cost and clinical impact of a nonmedical DPP-4 inhibitor switch in patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND: Nonmedical formulary switches (NMFS) routinely occur in managed health care plans and involve changing preferred medications for reasons outside of clinical considerations. The cost implications of NMFS are infrequently published and the clinical outcomes rarely assessed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world clinical and cost implications of an NMFS involving sitagliptin and linagliptin. METHODS: An NMFS was made to the Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) commercial, health care reform, and Medicaid formularies on February 1, 2018, involving a change in preferred medication from sitagliptin to linagliptin. Claims data from GHP and clinical information from electronic health records of the Geisinger Health System were used to evaluate the cost and clinical impact of this change. Patients aged 18 years or older who were continuously enrolled in a GHP commercial, health care reform, or Medicaid plan throughout the entire study period and had at least 1 fill for sitagliptin during the preswitch phase were included in the study. We investigated the differences in various clinical and economic outcomes from pre- to postswitch among those who switched and remained adherent to the new preferred therapy throughout the 12-month postperiod ("linagliptin switch" group) and patients who did not ("other switch" group). Clinical outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, diabetes-related hospitalization, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), while economic measures included changes in per member per month (PMPM) spending. The negative binomial regression model was used to estimate utilization counts. A generalized linear model with a log link and gamma distribution was used to analyze cost data. RESULTS: 1,203 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 501 (41.6%) individuals switched to and remained at least 80% adherent to linagliptin in the postperiod, while 702 (58.4%) did not. No difference between groups was found when comparing the pre- to postswitch change in all-cause hospitalization (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.66-3.23, P = 0.3436) or diabetes-related hospitalization (IRR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.62-3.10, P = 0.4203). Additionally, no difference was found between groups regarding the change in HbA1c 12-month postswitch compared with baseline (difference between groups = -0.10%, 95% CI = -0.39%-0.19%, P = 0.4962). Total PMPM spending was 43% higher in the other switch group compared with the linagliptin switch group (IRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.25-1.63, P < 0.0001). This trend was driven by 92% higher medical PMPM spending in the other switch group compared with the linagliptin switch group (IRR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.58-2.33, P < 0.0001) but was offset by 12% lower pharmacy PMPM spending in the other switch group (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82-0.95, P = 0.0009). CONCLUSIONS: An NMFS from sitagliptin to linagliptin resulted in overall health plan savings with no significant changes in health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Geisinger Health System, which had no role in the study outside of a final review of the submitted manuscript. Johns and Gionfriddo are Geisinger employees. The authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

The switch from etanercept originator to SB4: data from a real-life experience on tolerability and persistence on treatment in joint inflammatory diseases

Aims:

Switching from originator to biosimilar is part of current practice in inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondylarthritis (axSpA), with evidences derived from both etanercept (ETN) to SB4-switching randomized controlled trials and real-life registries. We investigated the safety and treatment persistence of ETN/SB4 in a multi-iRMD cohort derived from two rheumatology departments in our region.

Methods:

Adult patients with iRMDs, treated with ETN for at least 6 months and switched to SB4 in stable clinical condition, were eligible for this retrospective evaluation. Retrospective data on adverse events, loss of efficacy and persistence on treatment were collected until latest available follow-up.

Results:

A total of 220 patients (85 RA, 81 PsA, 33 axSpA, 14 juvenile idiopathic arthritis and seven other conditions; 142 females, mean age 58 ± 7 years, disease duration 12 ± 4 years, ETN duration 7 ± 4 years) were enrolled, with median follow-up of 12.1 (9.7–15.8) months. A total of 50 patients (22.7%) presented with at least one adverse event, with 36 (16.4%) disease flares and 30 (13.6%: 11 for safety and 19 loss of efficacy) SB4 withdrawals. Cumulative SB4 treatment persistence was 99.1%, 88.6% and 64.6% at 6, 12 and 18 months respectively. Back-switch to ETN was performed in 17/30 cases, the remaining cases were managed with change of biologic disease modifying or conventional synthetic anti-rheumatic drug. Age was the only significant predictor of SB4 interruption at 6 months.

Conclusion:

Our real-life data confirm the safety profile of switching from ETN to SB4, with slightly higher treatment persistence rates compared with other real-life registries.

Specialist physician perspectives on non-medical switching of prescription medications

Introduction: A non-medical switch is a change to a patient's medication regimen for reasons other than lack of clinical response, side-effects or poor adherence. Specialist physicians treat complex patients who may be vulnerable to non-medical switching. Objectives: To evaluate specialist physicians' perceptions regarding the frequency of non-medical switch requests, and the impact on their patients' outcomes and healthcare utilization. Methods: An online survey of randomly sampled physicians spending ≥10% of time providing patient care and having received ≥1 non-medical switch request during the prior 12-months. Results: Among 404 specialist physicians surveyed, non-medical switch requests were reported as very frequent or frequent by 35.0% of oncologists (for injectable cancer agents) and up to 80.3% of endocrinologists (for injectable anti-hyperglycemics). Respondents reported decreased medication effectiveness (25.0% of oncologists to 75.0% of dermatologists) and increased side-effects (32.5% of oncologists to 66.7% of psychiatrists). Most specialists reported very frequent or frequent increases in non-office visits (52.5% of oncologists to 75.3% of endocrinologists) and calls with pharmacies (57.5% of oncologists to 80.5% of rheumatologists) due to non-medical switching. Conclusions: Receipt of non-medical switching requests were common among specialist physicians. Non-medical switching may lead to negative effects on patient care and require increased healthcare utilization.