Search

In recent years, US payers have increased usage of formulary exclusions as a means to help manage costs. Earlier this year, one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers in the country added Eliquis (apixaban), the most widely used anticoagulant, to its list of excluded medicines from its formulary, raising concerns by physicians and patients. In this commentary, we examine the potential impacts of formulary exclusion of a drug like apixaban-a treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism to help prevent stroke and clotting events and which has been demonstrated to have a strong efficacy and safety profile. We discuss the effect of formulary exclusions on patients' ability to access the most clinically appropriate treatment for their health needs, along with possible effects on their health and well-being. We also report descriptive results on apixaban-treated patients with traditional Medicare coverage who faced a formulary exclusion of apixaban in 2017, and these patients' observed behaviors. We found that the majority of these patients remained on apixaban either through pre-emptively switching to a different Part D drug plan with apixaban coverage or applying for formulary exception. Our findings suggest that formulary exclusion did not help to achieve the goal of switching patients to less costly medications but created additional hurdles for patients to access their preferred treatment and increased patient burden. Alternative ways to manage payer costs may be needed to help avoid poor outcomes and reduce the burden placed on patients in their efforts to access life-saving medications.

Background: Poor quality of warfarin control (time in therapeutic range [TTR] < 65%) can lead to increased risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to examine the overall quality of international normalized ratio (INR) control and the association of TTR with clinical outcomes including stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality among US warfarin users., Methods and Results: This retrospective observational cohort study utilized the US Veterans Affairs electronic medical records database (VA EMR). Patients with NVAF who newly initiated warfarin from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2015 were grouped into two cohorts based on TTR <65% or ≥65%. TTR was computed from INR test results. Clinical outcomes assessed were stroke/systemic embolism (SE), hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding, defined based on hospitalization with those conditions as primary diagnosis, as well as all-cause mortality. Patients were followed from warfarin initiation to the first occurrence of an outcome or censoring. Propensity score weighted time-varying Cox regression was used to evaluate the risk of the clinical events. A total of 127,385 NVAF patients with mean TTR of 51% were included. TTR <65% was observed in 65% of patients. Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VAS C score (SD) was 2.9 (1.5) in the low TTR cohort and 2.7 (1.4) in the high TTR cohort. Patients with TTR <65% had a higher risk for any stroke/SE (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.41-1.75), major bleeding (HR: 2.78; 95% CI: 2.55-3.03) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.67-1.79)., Conclusions: The observed quality of warfarin control in VA EMR suggests room for improvement given the association with elevated risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of real-world (RWD) studies comparing the risk of major bleeding (MB) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, NHS-EED, and EconLit were searched for RWD studies published between January 2003 and November 2016 comparing MB risk among DOACs and warfarin. Proceedings of clinical conferences from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed., Results: A total of 4218 citations were identified, 26 of which met eligibility criteria. Most studies were retrospective analyses of administrative claims databases and patient registries (n = 23 of 26); about half were based in the United States (n = 15). Apixaban showed a significantly lower risk of MB versus warfarin in all eight included studies. MB risk was either significantly lower (n = 9 of 16) or not significantly different (n = 7 of 16) between dabigatran and warfarin; there was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and warfarin in all seven included studies. The risk was significantly lower with apixaban versus rivaroxaban (n = 7 of 7) but not significantly different from dabigatran (n = 6 of 7). MB risk was significantly lower (n = 3 of 4) or not significantly different (n = 1 of 4) with dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. No evidence was identified for edoxaban., Conclusion: DOACs were associated with similar or lower risks of MB versus warfarin. A lower MB risk was consistently observed for apixaban, but less consistently for dabigatran; MB risk was similar between rivaroxaban and warfarin. Among DOACs, the risk of MB with apixaban was consistently lower than with rivaroxaban, but similar to dabigatran.