Advancing Patient Care Through Specialty Pharmacy Services in an Academic Health System

Evaluating patient-reported adherence and outcomes in specialty disease states: A dual-site initiative

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often used by clinicians to evaluate patient response to specialty medications used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS) and rheumatologic conditions. Identifying associations among PROs and patient characteristics could inform patient-centered treatment monitoring.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association among patient characteristics and PROs, including patient-reported adherence (defined as no missed doses), medication tolerance, patient perceived effectiveness, and health care resource utilization (HCRU; defined as emergency department visits or hospitalizations), for patients prescribed specialty medications in 2 health system specialty pharmacies.

METHODS

A dual-center, retrospective review of monthly medication assessments completed by Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy and University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System specialty pharmacy was conducted. Patients were included if they received at least 3 fills of a specialty medication from rheumatology or MS clinics from October 2019 to March 2022, excluding patients with more than a 30-day supply. Primary outcomes were the PROs of patient-reported adherence, medication tolerability, perceived effectiveness, and HCRU. For each of the 2 primary outcomes (adherence and tolerability), a mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to test for associations with age, sex, race, clinic, site, and the other PROs.

RESULTS

A total of 61,926 assessments were completed from 3,677 patients (Site 1 = 3,346; 91.0% and Site 2 = 331; 9.0%). Patients were predominantly White (75.6%) and female (71.7%) with a median age of 50 years (IQR = 37-61). Assessments most frequently originated from rheumatology (76.0%). Nonadherence was reported 4.0% of the time, with the most common explanations being forgetfulness (33.1%) and medication being held because of a procedure or illness (29.5%). Most responses indicated perceived effectiveness as good/excellent (93.9%), with 98.5% of responses indicating no issues with tolerability. Patients who reported tolerability issues were 2.5 times more likely to report a missed dose (95% CI = 1.87-3.23, P < 0.001). An effectiveness rating of fair was associated with a 61% increase in the odds of a missed dose compared with a rating of good/excellent (95% CI = 1.33-1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients filling rheumatology or MS specialty medications within health system specialty pharmacies reported high rates of medication effectiveness and adherence and low rates of issues with tolerability and HCRU. Patients who report tolerability issues or lower perceived effectiveness may benefit from additional monitoring to prevent nonadherence.

Individual and Community-Level Characteristics and Adherence to Specialty Medications

Background: Understanding risk factors for nonadherence can help specialty pharmacies optimize resources to prevent nonadherence and inform risk-stratification processes. Objective: To determine which individual and community-level characteristics are associated with nonadherence to specialty medications. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled trial having filled a specialty medication at least 4 times in the previous 12 months with a proportion of days (PDC) covered < 0.90. We collected patient age, gender, race, medication administration type, therapy start date, home address, insurance type, and online patient portal status from the electronic health record. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to assess the association of nonadherence with individual and community-level patient characteristics. Results: Most patients were female (68%), white (82%), and held commercial insurance (58%) with a median age of 53 (interquartile range [IQR] 40, 64) years. Patients were mostly from the adult rheumatology (35%), multiple sclerosis (20%) and lipid (17%) clinics. Given a 10-year increase in age, patients had lower odds of having lower PDC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-0.94, P = 0.005). Patients on therapy greater than or equal to 1 year had half the odds of having lower PDC relative to patients on therapy less than 1 year (OR = 0.52, CI = 0.35 - 0.75, P < 0.001). No statistically significant associations were found between PDC and gender, race, insurance type, route of administration, clinic type, patient portal status, median income, percent receiving government assistance, or percent with no health insurance. Conclusion: Patients with younger age and shorter duration on treatment may be at-risk for lower adherence. Specialty pharmacies may benefit from targeting adherence interventions to these groups.

Comparison of time to treatment initiation of specialty medications between an integrated health system specialty pharmacy and external specialty pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Specialty medications are commonly dispensed through specialty pharmacies equipped to meet unique monitoring and dispensing requirements. Integrated health system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) coordinate with health system providers to deliver specialty medications to patients and ameliorate barriers to care. However, payors may restrict specialty medication fills to specialty pharmacies external to the health system, potentially leading to delayed treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare time to treatment initiation among patients whose specialty medications were transferred to external pharmacies and patients whose medications were filled at an internal HSSP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study examining time to treatment initiation in patients with a specialty medication referral to the University of Kentucky HealthCare Specialty Pharmacy between July 1, 2021, and July 1, 2022. Patients were classified into cohorts by receipt of dispensing services from the internal HSSP or an external specialty pharmacy. Data collected via chart review included insurance type, reason for prescription transfer, dates of service (including prescription order, transfer, and receipt of medication), and whether a prior authorization or clinical intervention was performed. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients requiring a prior authorization or clinical intervention. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess for statistically significant differences in time to treatment initiation between cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients with external transfers were identified for inclusion into the study, and after exclusion criteria were applied, 408 external transfer patients were propensity matched 1:1 to 408 patients with internal fills (total n = 816). Time to treatment initiation was significantly longer in the external transfer cohort as compared with the internal fill cohort, (18 days vs 12 days; P < 0.0001). The internal fill cohort had a greater mean days from provider order to the medication being ready to fill compared with the external transfer cohort (10 days vs 6 days; P < 0.0001). The internal fill cohort had fewer mean days from the medication being ready to fill to patient receipt of the medication as compared with the external transfer cohort (2 days vs 12 days; P < 0.0001). Similar findings were observed in the subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Average time to treatment initiation was 6 days shorter for patients whose specialty medications were filled at this HSSP compared with externally transferred patients. Delays in therapy can cause a negative impact on patient care and disease state management, with increased concern for specialty populations. The results of this study highlight the need for continued discussion about policies that limit patient choice to in-network pharmacies.

Cost avoidance from health system specialty pharmacist interventions in patients with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Specialty pharmacists monitor patients taking multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) to evaluate response to therapy and intervene on adverse effects. These interventions have the potential to avoid health care costs by discontinuing inappropriate therapies and avoiding downstream health care utilization.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the costs avoided by specialty pharmacist interventions in MS.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study including patients at the Vanderbilt MS Clinic who received a specialty pharmacist intervention between February 1, 2022, and July 31, 2022, was performed. A panel of 3 investigators categorized each intervention based on the potential for cost avoidance: (1) no cost avoidance, (2) direct cost avoidance, and (3) indirect cost avoidance. A single intervention may have one or both cost avoidance types. Direct costs avoided included the cost of the potential service or medication avoided due to the intervention. Medication costs were calculated using the range of the average wholesale price and average wholesale price - 20%. For indirect costs avoided, the range of costs of a consequence (self-care, ambulatory visit, emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death) occurring had the intervention not been performed were multiplied by the range of probabilities for the consequence occurring (from zero [0] to very likely [0.5]). Self-care indirect cost savings equated to $0. Descriptive statistics summarized types of pharmacist interventions, the patients impacted, and costs avoided. In patients with an intervention that resulted in cost avoidance, chart review was performed to collect patient demographics, disease history, and MS-related health care usage during the 12 months prior to the pharmacist intervention.

RESULTS

485 pharmacist interventions in 354 individual patients were included. Fifty interventions in 38 individual patients (76% female, median age 51 years, 68% White) resulted in cost avoidance. The total estimated costs avoided in 6 months ranged from $123,733 to $156,265. In total, $138,410 were direct costs and $1,890 were indirect costs. Reasons for direct costs avoided (n = 13) were often safety monitoring (69%) or common side effects management (23%). Indirect costs avoidance (n = 37) resulted primarily from interventions on common side effects management (57%) and safety monitoring (22%). Self-care was the most common type of indirect cost avoided (n = 27). Interventions resulting in costs avoided were commonly seen in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (82%). The median time from MS diagnosis was 15 years and 42% of patients had previously trialed 1 other MS DMT.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a potential for significant health care savings after specialty pharmacist interventions in MS, primarily from preventing the dispensing of inappropriate therapies.

Trends in Integration Between Physician Organizations and Pharmacies for Self-Administered Drugs

Importance

Increasing integration across medical services may have important implications for health care quality and spending. One major but poorly understood dimension of integration is between physician organizations and pharmacies for self-administered drugs or in-house pharmacies.

Objective

To describe trends in the use of in-house pharmacies, associated physician organization characteristics, and associated drug prices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study was conducted from calendar years 2011 to 2019. Participants included 20% of beneficiaries enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D. Data analysis was performed from September 15, 2020, to December 20, 2023.

Exposures

Prescriptions filled by in-house pharmacies.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The share of Medicare Part D spending filled by in-house pharmacies by drug class, costliness, and specialty was evaluated. Growth in the number of physician organizations and physicians in organizations with in-house pharmacies was measured in 5 specialties: medical oncology, urology, infectious disease, gastroenterology, and rheumatology. Characteristics of physician organizations with in-house pharmacies and drug prices at in-house vs other pharmacies are described.

Results

Among 8 020 652 patients (median age, 72 [IQR, 66-81] years; 4 570 114 [57.0%] women), there was substantial growth in the share of Medicare Part D spending on high-cost drugs filled at in-house pharmacies from 2011 to 2019, including oral anticancer treatments (from 10% to 34%), antivirals (from 12% to 20%), and immunosuppressants (from 2% to 9%). By 2019, 63% of medical oncologists, 20% of urologists, 29% of infectious disease specialists, 21% of gastroenterologists, and 22% of rheumatologists were in organizations with specialty-relevant in-house pharmacies. Larger organizations had a greater likelihood of having an in-house pharmacy (0.75 percentage point increase [95% CI, 0.56-0.94] per each additional physician), as did organizations owning hospitals enrolled in the 340B Drug Discount Program (10.91 percentage point increased likelihood [95% CI, 6.33-15.48]). Point-of-sale prices for high-cost drugs were 1.76% [95% CI, 1.66%-1.87%] lower at in-house vs other pharmacies.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of physician organization-operated pharmacies, in-house pharmacies were increasingly used from 2011 to 2019, especially for high-cost drugs, potentially associated with organizations' financial incentives. In-house pharmacies offered high-cost drugs at lower prices, in contrast to findings of integration in other contexts, but their growth highlights a need to understand implications for patient care.

The Role of Clinical Pharmacists in Patient-Centric Comprehensive Multiple Sclerosis Care

BACKGROUND

Individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) may experience a variety of visible and invisible symptoms and, as they age, comorbidities related and unrelated to their MS. This can result in a complex medication regimen that includes disease-modifying therapies, symptom management drugs, and prescriptions for other comorbid disorders.

METHODS

We reviewed the existing literature to discover how to optimally integrate neurology clinical pharmacists into the MS care team and how clinical pharmacists can directly support both providers and patients through their expertise in pharmacology and medication management.

RESULTS

With approaches founded on a shared decision-making process alongside neurology providers, patients, and care partners, clinical pharmacists can help meet the complex challenges of MS care in a variety of ways. Especially within MS clinics, they are well positioned to enhance current neurology practices given their extensive training in comprehensive medication management and their ability to identify nuances in medication management to promote pharmacovigilance and patient-centered care.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurology clinical pharmacists bring multifaceted medication management and patient counseling and education skills to the MS care team and can support the shared decision-making process by serving as an accessible resource for patients and clinicians. By building trusted partnerships between neurology providers and clinical pharmacists, MS care teams can achieve effective and efficient patient care. Future research should compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes between patients receiving standard care and those receiving multidisciplinary, pharmacist-integrated care.

Multicenter Study of Nonadherence to Self-Injectable Biologic Therapy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Risk Factors and Outcomes

Background and Aims

This study aimed to evaluate adherence to subcutaneous biologic therapy and impact of nonadherence including risk factors and outcomes in academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Methods

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis of patients aged ≥18 years receiving care in 3 tertiary care outpatient IBD clinics with integrated specialty pharmacies. Subjects were prescribed injectable anti-TNF therapy (adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab) or anti-IL 12/23 therapy (ustekinumab) with at least 3 consecutive prescription claims. The primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR), percent achieving optimal adherence (MPR > 0.86); in addition, we sought to verify a prior risk factor model including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits (ED) and IBD-related hospitalizations. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcox rank sum test, Pearson's Chi-squared test, and logistic regression model as an unordered, factor variable to flexibly estimate the probabilities of adherence.

Results

Six hundred eight subjects were included. Overall median MPR was 0.95 (interquartile range 0.47, 1) and adherence was 68%-70%. When the number of risk factors for nonadherence increased, the likelihood of nonadherence increased (P < .05). In unadjusted and adjusted analysis, nonadherence increased the likelihood of ED visits [rate ratio 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.05, 1.97)] and hospitalizations [rate ratio 1.60 (95% confidence interval 1.16, 2.10)].

Conclusion

Academic centers with integrated pharmacies had high adherence. Prior risk factors for nonadherence remained significant in this multicenter model. Nonadherence was associated with higher likelihood of hospitalizations and ED visits.

Specialty pharmacy turnaround time impediments, facilitators, and good practices

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving specialty medications have conditions that are often complex, high cost, and high need. Prompt treatment initiation is essential for the appropriate management of many conditions treated by specialty products. Improving the turnaround time (TAT) of specialty pharmacy prescriptions helps ensure patients receive the medication they need in the necessary time frame to optimize health outcomes. Despite a clinical justification for improved TAT, there is a gap in the literature describing what factors impact these times. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that may influence specialty pharmacy TATs and to identify good practices that specialty pharmacies use to improve TAT. METHODS: This qualitative study used 4 focus groups with specialty pharmacy subject matter experts. Each focus group represented different specialty pharmacy types, including health system, payer-associated, retail chain, and independent specialty pharmacies. Attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding specialty pharmacy TAT were captured. Open-ended questions and prompts eliciting impediments, facilitators, and good practices associated with specialty pharmacy TAT were asked of participants. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Fifteen individuals participated across 4 focus groups: payer-associated (n = 4), independent (n = 3), health system (n = 5), and retail chain (n = 3) specialty pharmacies. Average TATs varied across specialty pharmacy type and by prescription type (clean vs intervention). Several interconnected themes were identified, including barriers with health benefits formulary management, prior authorization delays, differences in requirements between managed care organizations, and miscommunication with physicians, among others. Five subthemes were identified during the discussion of factors influencing TAT, including patient characteristics, pharmacy characteristics, provider characteristics, clinical situations, and health benefit design and formulary considerations. Pharmacy workflow improvements through technology integration are thought to improve TAT. In addition, participants noted facilitators including specialization among pharmacists and technicians in certain diseases, particularly hepatitis C and cancer. Some good practices included using patient financial advocates, technology integration, and a structured patient onboarding process, which were found to minimize delays caused by prior authorization, communication, and formularies. CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of factors impacting specialty pharmacy prescription TAT were identified. Multidisciplinary coordination between pharmacies, physicians, and managed care organizations is essential to ensure patients receive medications in the necessary time frame to optimize health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted with support from Pfizer.

Impact of pharmacy services on time to elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor initiation

BACKGROUND: The approval of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) expanded highly effective cystic fibrosis transmembrane receptor modulator therapy to approximately 90% of persons aged 12 years and older with cystic fibrosis. Clinical pharmacists and pharmacy technicians played a key role in planning for ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval as well as initiating therapy after approval. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of pharmacy services on time to ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation. METHODS: A retrospective chart review evaluated 146 patients aged at least 12 years with cystic fibrosis qualifying for ELX/TEZ/IVA at a single health system between October 21, 2019, and April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Patients filling ELX/TEZ/IVA at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) vs an outside specialty pharmacy (SP) started on therapy an average of 10.8 days sooner (10.8 days ± 14.0 vs 21.6 days ± 18.8, respectively; P = 0.006). More patients filling at an HSSP received ELX/TEZ/IVA within 14 days of the prescription being written compared with outside SPs (82.0% vs 41.4%, respectively; P = 0.001). Before ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation, patients were hospitalized for a cystic fibrosis-related complication for an average of 6.26 days (range = 0-183) compared with 1.16 days (range = 0-91) after ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation. Lastly, an estimated $134,810 was saved in hospitalization dollars in the 105 patients that were able to fill ELX/TEZ/IVA at an HSSP by initiating the drug an average of 10.8 days sooner than outside SPs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the value of an integrated HSSP model. The ability to fill specialty medications at an integrated HSSP may optimize medication access, control costs, and improve patient outcomes for patients receiving care within a health system. DISCLOSURES: Dr Loucks has accepted payment for reviewing content of Lexicomp through Wolters Kluwer Consulting and for presenting and attending the American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer Meeting in June 2022. Dr Loucks is also a Workgroup Chair for the ASHP Pharmacist Section of Specialty Pharmacy Practitioners - Section Advisory Group on Outcomes and Value. Dr Simonsen was a participant in the Vertex Pharmaceuticals Advisory Board in April 2019 and accepted payment for travel and expenses. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose. This work is in part supported by the Statistical Expertise and Network (StatNet) Award of Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Pharmacist-managed multistep order transmittal for electronic specialty prescriptions reduces represcribing burden in ambulatory clinics: A retrospective cohort pilot study

BACKGROUND: Specialty medications pose unique prescribing challenges, including complexities with drug dosing and safety monitoring, need for prior authorization and patient financial assistance, use of payer-mandated specialty pharmacies, and special requirements for storage and handling. These challenges can lead to higher rates of represcribing for specialty clinic providers, who may be operating with inadequate information or limited resources. Multistep order transmittal (MSOT) is an electronic medical record (EMR) prescription work queue functionality used by a specialty pharmacy service to support select ambulatory clinics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between an MSOT specialty pharmacy support service and represcribing burden of specialty medications for providers in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A retrospective cohort pilot study was performed before and after MSOT implementation. Prescription data were queried from Sanford Health's EMR for patients who were electronically issued at least 1 prescription for an injectable biologic medication at a dermatology and rheumatology clinic. The pre-intervention group included index prescriptions prescribed between October 1, 2017, and June 20, 2018. The post-intervention group included index prescriptions prescribed between October 1, 2018, and June 20, 2019. Retrospective EMR review was completed to identify any prescriptions that were represcribed and the reason for represcribing. The primary outcome was the rate of represcribing. Secondary endpoints explored reason for represcribing, when it occurred. Nominal data were compared using Pearson's chi-square tests. Regressions were performed to account for potential confounders. RESULTS: The pre-intervention group included 880 index biologic prescriptions, and the post-intervention group included 941 index biologic prescriptions. The aggregate represcribing rate decreased from 12.73% in the pre-intervention group to 9.56% in the postintervention group (P = 0.03). Represcribing directly by providers as a result of needing to modify the destination pharmacy decreased significantly from 6.25% of the pre-intervention group to 0.64% of the post-intervention group (P < 0.01). However, represcribing due to patient preferences and prescribing errors increased significantly between the pre- and post-intervention groups, with patient preferences increasing from 0.91% to 2.55% (P = 0.01) and prescribing errors from 0.68% to 1.70% (P = 0.05), respectively. Represcribing due to provider preferences and payer restrictions remained similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within 2 ambulatory care clinics in an integrated health care system, the use of pharmacist-managed MSOT reduced overall represcribing burden. The need to represcribe owing to wrong destination pharmacy was nearly eliminated, while appropriate represcribing to accommodate patient preferences and correct prescribing errors increased. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Patient Access to Hepatitis C Treatment After Incorporation of Pharmacists in a Hepatology Clinic

Background: Modern hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment regimens yield cure rates greater than 90%. However, obtaining approval for treatment through the prior authorization (PA) process can be time consuming and require extensive documentation. Lack of experience with this complex process can delay HCV medication approval, ultimately increasing the amount of time before patients start treatment and in some cases, prevent treatment altogether. Objectives: Assess the impact of incorporating clinical pharmacists into specialty pharmacy and hepatology clinic services on medication access, patient adherence, and outcomes in patients being treated for HCV. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort exploratory study of patients seen in an academic medical center hepatology clinic who had HCV prescriptions filled between 8/1/15 and 7/31/17. Patients were categorized by whether they filled prescriptions prior to (Pre-Group) or after (Post-Group) the implementation of a pharmacist in clinic. The Post-Group was further divided according to whether the patient was seen by a pharmacist in clinic (Post-Group 2) or if the patient was not seen by the pharmacist, but had their HCV therapy evaluated by the pharmacist before seeking insurance approval (Post-Group 1). Results: The mean time from the prescription being ordered to being dispensed was longer in the Pre-Group (50.8 ± 66.5 days) compared to both Post-Groups (22.2 ± 27.8 days in Post-Group 1 vs 18.9 ± 17.7 days in Post-Group 2; P < .05). The mean time from when the prescription was ordered to when the PA was submitted was longer in the Pre-Group (41.6 ± 71.9 days) compared to both Post-Groups (6.3 ± 16 in Post-Group 1 vs 4.1 ± 9.7 in Post-Group 2; P < .05). Rates of medication adherence and sustained virologic response were similar between all groups. Conclusion: Incorporation of clinical pharmacists into a hepatology clinic significantly reduced the time patients waited to start HCV treatment. In addition to improving access to medications, implementation of the model helped to maintain excellent medication adherence and cure rates.

Association between health system specialty pharmacy use and health care costs among national sample of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries

BACKGROUND: Health care expenditures are growing rapidly. There is a growing body of literature showing that health system specialty pharmacy is associated with improvement in clinical outcomes; however, there is a lack of data on its effect on health care costs and utilization. OBJECTIVE: To perform exploratory research assessing the association between health system specialty pharmacy use and health care costs and utilization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted examining medical and pharmacy claims from 2018 and 2019 of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Optum Advisory Service's proprietary deidentified Normative Health Information database was used, which includes claims, membership, and provider data for 12.6 million Medicare Advantage members. Members who filled a prescription at a health system specialty pharmacy and had a specialty provider participating in the health system specialty pharmacy care model in clinic were assigned to the intervention group. Members who did not use a health system specialty pharmacy but had the same provider (provider benchmark group) or different provider (network benchmark group) were considered as comparisons. The network benchmark group was further refined to match variation in health care cost due to geography. The primary outcome measure was total health care costs (across the medical and pharmacy benefit) on a per-patient per-month basis. Secondary outcomes were selected utilization drivers and cost subcomponents. Cost and utilization metrics were calculated on a risk-adjusted basis using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC) risk score methodology. Differences were assessed for categorical variables with chi-square tests, and 2-tailed t-tests were used for continuous variables. RESULTS: Of the analytic sample of 9,780 members used in this study, 208 (2.1%) used health system specialty pharmacy services. During the 2018 baseline period, total health care costs and utilization were similar after CMS-HCC risk score adjustment ($9,520 among health system specialty pharmacy users; $8,691 among the provider benchmark group; $9,510 among the network benchmark group) but lower in 2019 ($7,060, $7,683, and $8,152, respectively). The differences in 2019 were primarily driven by savings in pharmacy and free-standing physician-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a health system specialty pharmacy is associated with a lower health care cost. Further study is required to analyze how drug and disease-specific interactions influence total health care costs and utilization for health system specialty pharmacy populations. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Shields Health Solutions and completed with Optum Advisory Services, which provided all analysis and was the sole source of data. University of Massachusetts Medical School investigators were independent context experts, who volunteered their time for this study. Hellems is employed by Optum Advisory Services; Fasching and Smith are employed by Shields Health Solutions; and Soni and McManus are employed by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Soni received support from the National Institute of General Medical Science (T32GM107000), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1-TR001454), and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1F30HD091975-03). McManus's time was supported by R01HL126911, R01HL137734, R01HL137794, R01HL135219, R01HL136660, U54HL143541 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. McManus has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Care Evolution, Samsung, Apple Computer, Pfizer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Philips Research Institute, Flexcon, Fitbit; has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Rose Consulting, Boston Biomedical Associates, and FlexCon; and is also a member of the Operations Committee and Steering Committee for the GUARD-AF Study (NCT04126486), sponsored by Bristol Meyers Squibb and Pfizer. The other authors have nothing additional to disclose. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funders played no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Evaluation of the impact of a clinical pharmacist on a specialty neurology clinic's adherence to recommended laboratory test monitoring

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists can have a significant effect on the specialty ambulatory care setting. Specialty medications are potentially high risk and may require frequent laboratory test monitoring to assess for therapy-associated adverse effects. Pharmacists may work under collaborative drug therapy management agreements that allow for the ordering and assessment of recommended laboratory tests in order to optimize safe and effective medication use. The impact of pharmacists on clinic adherence to recommended laboratory test monitoring has yet to be described in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of a specialty clinical pharmacist on neurology clinic adherence to manufacturer-recommended laboratory test monitoring. METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review at a single academic medical center for the period between July 1, 2014, and April 30, 2020, comparing laboratory test monitoring adherence before (prepharmacist) and after (post-pharmacist) incorporation of a pharmacist into a neurology clinic. Patients were included if they lived in the Tri-County Area of Charleston, South Carolina, and received a prescription for dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, teriflunomide, or cannabidiol that was prescribed by a neurology clinic provider at the Medical University of South Carolina. Chart review was conducted to assess clinic adherence with manufacturer-recommended laboratory test monitoring. Laboratory test monitoring was considered adherent if obtained within 6 months before or on the date of prescription order. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, and adherence rates were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: For dalfampridine, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, and teriflunomide, there were 123 patients and 78 patients in the pre- and post-pharmacist groups, respectively. There were 51 patients in the cannabidiol group. Clinic adherence to laboratory test monitoring improved in the post-pharmacist group for every monitoring point, with statistically significant improvement in "hepatic function tests every 6-9 months" (P = 0.005), "CBC every 6-9 months" (P = 0.01), and "VZV IgG titer at baseline" (P = 0.005) for patients taking fingolimod. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated improved adherence to manufacturer-recommended laboratory test monitoring after a specialty clinical pharmacist was incorporated into a multidisciplinary neurology clinic. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Comparison of measures of medication adherence from pharmacy dispensing and insurer claims data

OBJECTIVE

Medication nonadherence is linked to worsened clinical outcomes and increased costs. Existing system-level adherence interventions rely on insurer claims for patient identification and outcome measurement, yet suffer from incomplete capture and lags in data acquisition. Data from pharmacies regarding prescription filling, captured in retail dispensing, may be more efficient.

DATA SOURCES

Pharmacy fill and insurer claims data.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared adherence measured using pharmacy fill data to adherence using insurer claims data, expressed as proportion of days covered (PDC) over 12 months. Agreement was evaluated using correlation/validation metrics. We also explored the relationship between adherence in both sources and disease control using prediction modeling.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

Large pragmatic trial of cardiometabolic disease in an integrated delivery network.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Among 1113 patients, adherence was higher in pharmacy fill (mean = 50.0%) versus claims data (mean = 47.4%), although they had moderately high correlation (R = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.53-0.61) with most patients (86.9%) being similarly classified as adherent or nonadherent. Sensitivity and specificity of pharmacy fill versus claims data were high (0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.91 and 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75-0.85). Pharmacy fill-based PDC predicted better disease control slightly more than claims-based PDC, although the difference was nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy fill data may be an alternative to insurer claims for adherence measurement.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of a health outcomes and research program at an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy

PURPOSE

Health-system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) provide high-quality, efficient, and collaborative care to patients receiving specialty therapy. Despite proven benefits of the integrated model, manufacturer and payer restrictions challenge the viability and utility of HSSPs. Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy developed a health outcomes and research program to measure and communicate the value of this model, drive improvement in patient care delivery, and advocate for recognition of HSSP pharmacists' role in patient care. The purpose of this descriptive report is to describe the development and results of this program.

SUMMARY

The health outcomes and research program began as an initiative for pharmacists to evaluate and convey the benefits they provide to patients, providers, and the health system. Early outcomes data proved useful in communicating the value of an integrated model to key stakeholders and highlighted the need to further develop research efforts. The department leadership invested resources to build a research program with dedicated personnel, engaged research experts to train pharmacists, and fostered internal and external collaborations to facilitate research efforts. As of March 2021, the health outcomes and research program team has published 33 peer-reviewed manuscripts, presented 88 posters and 7 podium presentations at national conferences, and received 4 monetary research awards. Further, the program team engages other HSSP teams to initiate and expand their own health outcomes research in an effort to empower all HSSPs in demonstrating their value.

CONCLUSIONS

The health outcomes and research program described has pioneered outcomes research among HSSPs nationwide and has proven valuable to specialty pharmacists, the health system, and key specialty pharmacy stakeholders.

Specialty pharmacist integration into an outpatient neurology clinic improves pimavanserin access

Introduction

Access to pimavanserin, the only Parkinson disease–related psychosis treatment approved by the FDA, is restricted by insurance requirements, a limited distribution network, and high costs. Following initiation, patients require monitoring for safety and effectiveness. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate impact of specialty pharmacist (SP) integration on time to insurance approval. Additionally, we describe a pharmacist-led monitoring program.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of adults prescribed pimavanserin by the neurology clinic from June 2016 to June 2018. Patients receiving pimavanserin externally or through clinical trials were excluded. Pre- (June 2016 to December 2016) and post-SP integration (January 2017 to June 2018) periods were assessed. Proportional odds logistic regression was performed to test association of approval time with patient characteristics (age, gender, insurance type) postintegration. Interventions were categorized as clinical care, care coordination, management of adverse event, or adherence.

Results

We included 94 patients (32 preintegration, 62 postintegration), 80% male (n = 75) and 96% white (n = 90) with a mean age of 73 years. Median time to approval was 22 days preintegration and 3 days postintegration. Higher rates of approval (81% vs 95%) and initiation (78% vs 94%) were observed postintegration. Proportional odds logistic regression suggested patients with commercial insurance were likely to have longer time to approval compared with patients with Medicare/Medicaid (odds ratio 7.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 26.7; P = .004). Most interventions were clinical (51%, n = 47) or care coordination (42%, n = 39).

Conclusion

Median time to approval decreased postintegration. The SP performed valuable monitoring and interventions.

Effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on cost in an integrated health system specialty pharmacy

BACKGROUND: Patients who are prescribed specialty medications require close monitoring, including assessment of laboratory parameters, toxicities, and adherence. Specialty pharmacies integrated within a health system are able to access records, assess therapy, and efficiently communicate with prescribers. OBJECTIVE: To analyze interventions made by clinical pharmacists within the Cleveland Clinic Specialty Pharmacy (CCSP) regarding cost avoidance for the health care system and improvements in patient safety. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study that analyzed pharmacist interventions regarding specialty hematology/oncology medications. Interventions were measured with pharmacist documentation within the electronic health record (EHR). The primary endpoint was the cost-avoidance effect of clinical pharmacist interventions resulting from pharmacist access to the EHR. Secondary endpoints included pharmacist interventions that led to additional ancillary or supportive care, time taken to perform interventions, total interventions according to new or refill status, and total interventions performed according to insurance subtype. RESULTS: 547 interventions were identified during the study period, with a total cost avoidance of $1,508,131. The intervention with the highest overall cost savings was discontinuation of therapy ($290,091). The highest cost savings, based on intervention type, was lack of follow-up ($30,892). The medication with the highest overall cost savings was abiraterone ($273,160). Gilteritinib was associated with the highest cost saving per intervention ($28,350). The indication with the highest overall cost savings was prostate cancer ($402,601), while cutaneous T-cell lymphoma had the highest cost savings per intervention ($25,424). CONCLUSIONS: CCSP pharmacist interventions led to significant overall cost savings to the health care system. Although not measured in this study, it is reasonable to expect that decreased medication use may also translate into less financial burden for patients, as well as for pharmacy benefit managers. Access to the EHR and integration within the health care system may have facilitated the cost savings. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Psychosocial Obstacles to Hepatitis C Treatment Initiation Among Patients in Care: A Hitch in the Cascade of Cure

There are limited data examining the relationship between psychosocial factors and receipt of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment among patients with hepatitis C in large health care organizations in the United States. We therefore sought to determine whether such factors were associated with DAA initiation. We analyzed data from an extensive psychological, behavioral, and social survey (that incorporated several health-related quality of life assessments) coupled with clinical data from electronic health records of patients with hepatitis C enrolled at four health care organizations during 2017-2018. Of 2,681 patients invited, 1,051 (39.2%) responded to the survey; of 894 respondents eligible for analysis, 690 (77.2%) initiated DAAs. Mean follow-up among respondents was 9.2 years. Compared with DAA recipients, nonrecipients had significantly poorer standardized scores for depression, anxiety, and life-related stressors as well as poorer scores related to physical and mental function. Lower odds of DAA initiation in multivariable analysis (adjusted by age, race, sex, study site, payment provider, cirrhosis status, comorbidity status, and duration of follow-up) included Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.59 vs. White race), perceived difficulty getting medical care in the preceding year (aOR, 0.48 vs. no difficulty), recent injection drug use (aOR, 0.11 vs. none), alcohol use disorder (aOR, 0.58 vs. no alcohol use disorder), severe depression (aOR, 0.42 vs. no depression), recent homelessness (aOR, 0.36 vs. no homelessness), and recent incarceration (aOR, 0.34 vs. no incarceration). Conclusion: In addition to racial differences, compared with respondents who initiated DAAs, those who did not were more likely to have several psychological, behavioral, and social impairments. Psychosocial barriers to DAA initiation among patients in care should also be addressed to reduce hepatitis C-related morbidity and mortality.

Pharmacist Interventions to Improve Specialty Medication Adherence: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of specialty medications in complicated clinical conditions depends on adherence to therapy. However, specialty medications pose unique barriers to adherence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine whether pharmacist interventions improve specialty medication adherence.

METHODS

This is a single-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial ongoing since 10 May 2019 at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy. This study evaluates usual care compared with usual care plus patient-tailored adherence interventions. Study design and procedures were informed by focus groups with patients and specialty pharmacists. Patients at Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy with a proportion of days covered (PDC) < 90% in the previous 4 months are identified by a daily query of the electronic pharmacy database. A pharmacist reviews these patients' electronic health records to identify and exclude ineligible patients. Eligible patients are randomized evenly to the control or intervention arm and stratified by historical clinic nonadherence rates. Patients randomized to the intervention arm undergo a baseline assessment to clarify reasons for nonadherence and subsequently receive patient-tailored interventions based on their specific reasons. Interventions and follow-up are provided at the discretion of the intervening pharmacist. The primary outcome is PDC calculated at 8 months post-enrollment. Enrollment of 438 participants will provide 90% power to detect a 5% difference in PDC between the two arms within each nonadherence risk stratum.

DISCUSSION

This trial will evaluate the effect of patient-tailored interventions on specialty medication adherence and will inform how often and why patients are misidentified as nonadherent.

REGISTRATION

The trial was deemed a quality improvement initiative by the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board. It was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03709277) on 17 October 2018.

An Integrated Health-System Specialty Pharmacy Model for Coordinating Transitions of Care: Specialty Medication Challenges and Specialty Pharmacist Opportunities

Adherence and persistence to specialty medications are necessary to achieve successful outcomes of costly therapies. The increasing use of specialty medications has exposed several unique barriers to certain specialty treatments' continuation. Integrated specialty pharmacy teams facilitate transitions in sites of care, between different provider types, among prescribed specialty medications, and during financial coverage changes. We review obstacles encountered within these types of transitions and the role of the specialty pharmacist in overcoming these obstacles. Case examples for each type of specialty transition provide insight into the unique complexities faced by patients, and shed light on pharmacists' vital role in patient care. This insightful and real-world experience is needed to facilitate best practices in specialty care, particularly in the growing number of health-system specialty pharmacies.

Effect of a Smart Pill Bottle and Pharmacist Intervention on Medication Adherence in Patients with Multiple Myeloma New to Lenalidomide Therapy

BACKGROUND

U.S. specialty drug spend is expected to reach $400 billion by 2020, with significant growth in oncology. New oral oncology approvals have allowed for more convenient outpatient administration compared with physician-administered chemotherapies; however, patients may encounter challenges with adherence when taking medications at home. Emerging medication adherence technology (MAT) attempts to provide at-home adherence support, and while one such technology, smart pill bottles (SPB), claims to improve medication adherence, few studies have formally assessed their effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of an SPB with pharmacist intervention on medication adherence in adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) new to lenalidomide therapy (≤ 5 cycle dispenses). Secondary objectives were to evaluate treatment cycles completed, evaluate the significance of real-time pharmacist engagement (intervention group only), determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and evaluate patient satisfaction and likelihood to use an SPB.

METHODS

This prospective, random assignment, single-site, and single-blinded study recruited 40 adult patients diagnosed with MM new to lenalidomide at a specialty pharmacy. Recruitment was completed January-February 2016, and the length of study was 6 months. Participants were randomized 1:1 between the intervention and control groups. The intervention group received lenalidomide in activated SPBs with light, chimes, text message reminders, and pharmacist follow-up if weekly SPB adherence rates dropped below 80%. The control group received lenalidomide in identical SPBs with all alerts deactivated. SBPs contained cellular capabilities, enabling around-the-clock data transmission and captured data upon bottle-uncapping events. Patient adherence was calculated by dividing the number of bottle-uncapping events by the total number of doses supplied for each dosing cycle. Lenalidomide cycles completed and pharmacist outreach to the same patient were counted to determine pharmacist intervention. The ICER was calculated to determine SPB cost-effectiveness, and a Likert scale survey was given to the intervention group to evaluate patient satisfaction with the full-service SPB.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants in each arm completed the study; 4 patients in each arm were lost to follow-up. Median adherence was improved for the intervention group compared with the control group (median = 100% vs. 87.4%; P = 0.001). The ICER per patient percentage adherence increase was found to be $96.03. Sixty percent of patients in the intervention group who responded to the post-satisfaction survey rated the full SPB service very positively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, SPB interventions were associated with increased medication adherence and patient satisfaction. This pilot also provides empirical data on the cost-effectiveness of adherence technology used in a specialty pharmacy oncology setting.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by Avella Specialty Pharmacy and AdhereTech. All authors are employees of Avella; Eric Sredzinski was an option holder of Avella; and none of the Avella authors had a financial interest in AdhereTech. AdhereTech provided the SPBs and data services for the duration of this study. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest. Interim study data were presented at the 2016 Southwestern States Residency Conference (SSRC) on June 20, 2016, in Phoenix, AZ.

Closing the Gap: Identifying Rates and Reasons for Nonadherence in a Specialty Population

BACKGROUND

Adherence to specialty and nonspecialty medications is often calculated using pharmacy claims data. However, specialty medication regimens are complex and may require periods of intentional gaps in therapy. Common adherence calculations are insufficient in identifying reasons for gaps in therapy. Because adherence reporting is a growing measure of quality care for specialty pharmacy accreditation and payer and manufacturer contracts, a better understanding of the rates and reasons for nonadherence within a specialty population is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To identify rates and reasons for misidentified and true nonadherence in patients who are prescribed specialty medications.

METHODS

A single center, retrospective cohort study was conducted using pharmacy claims data between March 2017 and February 2018. Medication adherence was calculated using proportion of days covered (PDC). Electronic medical records of a random 10% sample of nonadherent patients (PDC < 80%) were manually reviewed to identify reasons for nonadherence. Patients were then classified as either (a) misidentified as nonadherent (i.e., a provider-directed discontinuation or disruption of treatment that varies from the prescribed administration schedule or transfer of the prescription to an external pharmacy) or (b) truly nonadherent (discontinuation or disruption of treatment that varies from the prescribed administration instruction that is not directed or recommended by the provider or health care team).

RESULTS

Of the 7,488 included prescription records from 18 specialty areas, 1,059 met criteria for nonadherence. 105 prescription records (representing 105 unique patients) were manually reviewed; most of these patients (58%) were truly nonadherent, driven by inability to contact patients for refills (59%). However, 40% were misidentified as nonadherent, most due to provider-directed medication holding (69%). Two percent of patients were nonadherent for unknown reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients classified as nonadherent based on pharmacy claims experienced gaps in therapy due to medically appropriate reasons. Methods to better measure and identify true nonadherence are needed to efficiently and adequately affect specialty medication adherence behavior.

DISCLOSURES

This study received funding support from CTSA Award No. UL1 TR002243 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Study findings and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health. Zuckerman reports research support from Sanofi and Gilead Sciences, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose. A poster based on the data from this study was presented at AMCP Nexus 2018 on October 24, 2018, in Orlando, FL.

High rates of medication adherence in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: An integrated specialty pharmacy approach

Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE-5I) have demonstrated improvement in disease symptoms and quality of life for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Despite these benefits, reported adherence to PDE-5I therapy is sub-optimal. Clinical pharmacists at an integrated practice site are in a unique position to mitigate barriers related to PAH therapy including medication adherence and costs. The primary objective of this study was to assess medication adherence to PDE-5I therapy within an integrated care model at an academic institution. The secondary objective was to assess the impact of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost, frequency of dosing, adverse events (AE) and PAH-related hospitalizations on medication adherence. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients with PAH who were prescribed PDE-5I therapy by the center's outpatient pulmonary clinic and who received medication management through the center's specialty pharmacy. We defined optimal medication adherence as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 80%. Clinical data including AEs and PAH-related hospitalizations were extracted from the electronic medical record, and financial data from pharmacy claims. Of the 131 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 94% achieved optimal adherence of ≥ 80% PDC. In this study population, 47% of patients experienced an AE and 27% had at least one hospitalization. The median monthly OOP cost was $0.62. Patients with PDC<80% were more likely to report an AE compared to patients with PDC≥ 80% (p = 0.002). Hospitalization, OOP cost, and frequency of dosing were not associated with adherence in this cohort. Patients receiving PDE-5I therapy through an integrated model achieved high adherence rates and low OOP costs.

Building a Hepatitis C Clinical Program: Strategies to Optimize Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An increasing number of specialists and non-specialists are developing clinical programs to treat and cure hepatitis C virus (HCV). The goal of this paper is to evaluate and describe optimal strategies to improve outcomes related to HCV care delivery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Screening and diagnosis of HCV should be guided by established recommendations. Given the recognized disparity in HCV diagnosis and linkage to care, a multi-modal approach involving care coordination and technology resources should be used to improve patient engagement. Access to HCV treatment may be optimized through systematic documentation, prior authorization, and appeal processes. Treatment monitoring should emphasize medication adherence, side effect and drug interaction management, as well as elimination of practical barriers. Finally, post-treatment engagement to promote liver health and reduce the risk of complications or reinfection maximizes the benefit of HCV treatment.

SUMMARY

The landscape of HCV treatment has evolved from a specialist-driven model with few patients qualifying for treatment to an opportunity for non-specialists and other providers to provide curative therapies in most patients. Innovative practice models that employ a multidisciplinary approach will likely improve screening, diagnosis, engagement, and treatment outcomes.

Refill-Based Medication Use Quality Measures in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Examination of Proportion of Days Covered and Medication Possession Ratio

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacy Quality Alliance's definition of proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR) have not been examined as potential quality measures in the kidney transplant recipient population.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe the frequency distribution of MPR and PDC using mycophenolic acid products in a real-world kidney transplant recipient population and (b) evaluate associations between MPR and PDC with late (> 90 days after transplantation) biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study combining data from the Wisconsin Allograft Recipient Database with University of Wisconsin (UW) Health Specialty Pharmacy prescription claims and dispensing data from March 10, 2006, to June 30, 2012. Patients who met criteria for persistence filling mycophenolic acid prescriptions at UW Health Specialty Pharmacy in the first year following discharge from kidney transplantation surgery hospitalization were included. Patients were excluded if they were enrolled in a clinical trial, if they had BPAR within 90 days of transplantation, or if they did not have panel reactive antibody data available. PDC and MPR were calculated over 360 days after discharge, and multivariable analyses were performed to determine if there were associations between PDC or MPR with late BPAR within 3 years.

RESULTS

This study included 388 patients. The incidence of 3-year late BPAR was 5.1% (n = 20). Characteristics of patients who experienced late BPAR were largely consistent with those who did not experience late BPAR, with the exception of number of hospital readmissions, which was higher among patients who experienced late BPAR. The frequency distribution of PDC and MPR exhibited a skewed left distribution, with a median PDC of 0.972 and a median MPR of 1.000. Higher PDC was associated with lower odds of late BPAR (OR = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.004-0.417) in multivariable analysis, as was a higher MPR (OR = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.004-0.419).

CONCLUSIONS

MPR and PDC may be calculated from data available to pharmacies and health plans, and each was associated with 3-year late BPAR among patients who did not experience early BPAR. However, the construct validity of these medication adherence measures requires further study.

DISCLOSURES

This study was not funded. The authors report no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial interests related to the products or services discussed in this article. Study concept and design were contributed by Hofmeyer, along with Look and Hager. Hager took the lead in data collection, along with the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Look, along with the other authors. The manuscript was primarily written by Hofmeyer, assisted by Look and Hager, and revised by all of the authors.