Medicare Part D benzodiazepine exclusion and use of psychotropic medication by patients with new anxiety disorders

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes

BACKGROUND

Drug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by  Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC)  to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare is limited.

Psychoactive Medications and Adverse Outcomes among Older Adults Receiving Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend avoidance of several psychoactive medications such as hypnotics in older adults due to their adverse effects. Older patients on hemodialysis may be particularly vulnerable to complications related to use of these agents, but only limited data are available about the risks in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association between the use of psychoactive medications and time to first emergency department visit or hospitalization for altered mental status, fall, and fracture among older patients receiving hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

National registry of patients receiving hemodialysis (US Renal Data System).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 60 007 adults 65 years or older receiving hemodialysis with Medicare Part D coverage in 2011.

MEASUREMENTS

The predictors were use of sedative-hypnotics and anticholinergic antidepressants (modeled as separate time-varying exposures). The outcomes were time to first emergency department visit or hospitalization for altered mental status, fall, and fracture (modeled separately).

RESULTS

Overall, 17% and 6% used sedative-hypnotics and anticholinergic antidepressants, respectively, in 2011. In multivariable-adjusted Cox regression, anticholinergic antidepressant use was associated with a 25%, 27%, and 39% higher hazard of altered mental status, fall, and fracture, respectively, compared with no use. Use of sedative-hypnotics was not associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Anticholinergic antidepressants were associated with adverse outcomes in older hemodialysis patients, and alternative treatments should be considered. Sedative-hypnotics were not associated with the risks evaluated in this study, but further investigation of the harms of this class of agents is warranted before their recommendation as a treatment option for insomnia in this population. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:449-454, 2019.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of suvorexant for the treatment of Japanese elderly patients with chronic insomnia in a virtual cohort

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant against zolpidem, the most widely used hypnotic benzodiazepine receptor agonist in Japan. To this end, a model was used that factored in insomnia and the risk for hip fractures, which have devastating effects on the elderly.

METHODS

Data were derived from published papers. The target population was a virtual cohort of elderly patients (≥65 years) with insomnia residing in Japan. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as effectiveness measures. The investigators assumed the perspective of healthcare payers.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, suvorexant was cost-saving (suvorexant: $252.3, zolpidem: $328.7) and had higher QALYs gained (suvorexant: 0.0641, zolpidem: 0.0635) for elderly Japanese patients with insomnia compared with zolpidem, indicating that suvorexant was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, the outcome changed from dominant to dominated due to the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. However, when the other parameters were varied from the lower to the upper limits of their ranges, suvorexant remained dominant compared to zolpidem.

LIMITATIONS

The relative risk for hip fractures for suvorexant used in the model was based on data from pre-approval clinical trials. More precise data may be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Suvorexant seemed to be more cost-effective than the alternative zolpidem. The findings suggested that suvorexant might be a viable alternative to zolpidem for elderly patients with insomnia. A sensitivity analysis showed that outcome varied depending on the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. Further investigations may be needed for more precise results.

Continuing Versus New Prescriptions for Sedative-Hypnotic Medications: United States, 2005-2012

OBJECTIVES

To assess trends in continuing and new prescriptions for sedative-hypnotic medications, including benzodiazepines (BZDs) and non-BZD receptor agonists (nBZRAs).

METHODS

Data came from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and comprised 287 288 randomly sampled patient visits. Physicians reported medications prescribed and whether they were "continuing" or "new" prescriptions. We assessed trends in continuing BZD, new BZD, continuing nBZRA, and new nBZRA prescriptions from 2005 to 2012.

RESULTS

Proportions of visits with continuing prescriptions increased from 3.4% in 2005 to 4.7% in 2012 (P < .01) for BZDs, and from 1.0% to 1.7% (P < .01) for nBZRAs. We noted no changes in new prescriptions. We observed the same patterns across patient age and physician specialties, except psychiatry. Despite no growth over time, the prevalence of visits involving continuing and new BZD and nBZRA prescriptions was much higher in psychiatry than in primary care and other specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased sedative-hypnotic prescribing in recent years may be attributable to long-term growth in continuing prescriptions, rather than new prescriptions. Public Health Implications. Findings call for renewed efforts to limit continuing prescribing of sedative-hypnotics to reduce their use in the population.

Medicare Part D's Effects on Drug Utilization and Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To update a past systematic review on whether Medicare Part D changed drug utilization and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs overall and within subpopulations, and to identify evidence gaps.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Published and gray literature from 2010 to 2015 meeting prespecified screening criteria, including having a comparison group, and utilization or OOP cost outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic literature review with a quality assessment.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

For each study, we extracted information on study design, data sources, analytic methods, outcomes, and limitations. Because outcome measures vary across studies, we did a qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Sixty-five studies met screening criteria. Overall, Medicare Part D enrollees have increased drug utilization and decreased OOP costs, but coverage gaps limit the program's impact. Beneficiaries whose insurance becomes more generous after enrollment had disproportionately increased drug utilization and decreased OOP costs. Outcomes among dual-eligibles were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence on how Medicare Part D and the donut hole coverage gap affect utilization and OOP costs, but weak evidence on how effects vary among dual-eligibles or across diseases. Findings suggest that the Affordable Care Act's provisions to expand coverage and reduce the donut hole should improve patient outcomes.

The history of benzodiazepines

After more than 50 years of experience with benzodiazepines, the American health care system has a love-hate relationship with them. In 1955, Hoffmann-La Roche chemist Leo Sternbach serendipitously identified the first benzodiazepine, chlordiazepoxide (Librium). By 1960, Hoffmann-La Roche marketed it as Librium, and it pursued molecular modifications for enhanced activity. Valium (diazepam) followed in 1963. Hoffmann-La Roche's competitors also began looking for analogues. Initially, benzodiazepines appeared to be less toxic and less likely to cause dependence than older drugs. A specific improvement was their lack of respiratory depression, a safety concern with barbiturates. Medical professionals greeted benzodiazepines enthusiastically at first, skyrocketing their popularity and patient demand. In the mid-to-late 1970s, benzodiazepines topped all "most frequently prescribed" lists. It took 15 years for researchers to associate benzodiazepines and their effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid as a mechanism of action. By the 1980s, clinicians' earlier enthusiasm and propensity to prescribe created a new concern: the specter of abuse and dependence. As information about benzodiazepines, both raising and damning, accumulated, medical leaders and legislators began to take action. The result: individual benzodiazepines and the entire class began to appear on guidelines and in legislation giving guidance on their use. Concurrently, clinicians began to raise concerns about benzodiazepine use by elderly patients, indicating that elders'lesser therapeutic response and heightened sensitivity to side effects demanded prescriber caution. The benzodiazepine story continues to evolve and includes modern-day issues and concerns beyond those ever anticipated.

The effect of the Medicare Part D benzodiazepine exclusion on the utilization patterns of benzodiazepines and substitute medications

BACKGROUND

Although the benzodiazepine exclusion policy in the U.S. Medicare Part D drug coverage program has been studied, little information is available on individual use and switching patterns between benzodiazepines and substitute medications. Patients voluntarily were continuing or stopping benzodiazepines or switching to substitute medications. These individual-level outcomes can provide information beneficial to providers and policymakers to better understand the intended and unintended consequences of exclusion policies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine the effect of the Medicare Part D benzodiazepine exclusion on the utilization patterns of benzodiazepines and substitute medications by a select group of Medicare beneficiaries for a year following implementation of the exclusion. This research focused on the examination of the within-person patterns of benzodiazepine use and factors associated with these patterns.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental, comparative study was used to analyze prescription patterns and multinomial regression models were applied to investigate factors predicting different benzodiazepine use patterns. Pharmacy dispensing data for continuously eligible Medicare beneficiaries with at least one benzodiazepine fill in 2005 were reduced to a comparison group of 216 individuals with continual coverage and an intervention group of 250 individuals who lost coverage for benzodiazepines. Four individual patients' drug use patterns, continuation, switch, fluid movement, and cessation were identified by sorting and arraying pharmacy dispensing data to apply systematic drug file review. Multinomial regression models were used to examine the impact of coverage, demographic, medical, economic, and pharmaceutical factors.

RESULTS

Significantly more Medicare seniors who lost benzodiazepine coverage switched to potential substitute medications than those who continued to have coverage. Interestingly, 12 percent of affected seniors and 6 percent of unaffected seniors switched from and back to benzodiazepines (fluid movement). Zolpidem was the most popular substitute agent despite being an expensive brand-name drug. Regression models revealed that affected individuals had nearly two times the odds of engaging in switch-related patterns than those who had continuous coverage. Also, women were twice as likely to discontinue benzodiazepines as men.

CONCLUSIONS

More seniors who lost benzodiazepine coverage engaged in medication switching, and women were more likely to stop benzodiazepines after the implementation of the exclusion policy.