Search

We described insulin glargine (originator) and insulin glargine-yfgn (biosimilar) treatment patterns, assessed effectiveness and safety outcomes, and identified reasons for switching back to the originator product from the biosimilar. This retrospective study included 328,463 Veterans 18 years of age and older who received one or more outpatient prescriptions for insulin glargine and/or insulin glargine-yfgn between 1 June 2021 and 31 December 2022. Patients were assigned to subgroups based on the initial prescription during the study period, prevalent versus incident use for originator insulin glargine, and prior versus no prior use of the originator before the biosimilar (i.e., prevalent originator non-switcher (n = 189,734), originator switch to biosimilar (n = 81,010), incident originator non-switcher (n = 49,401), and incident biosimilar (n = 8318)). There were no differences in the outcome of mean HbA1c (7.9% for all subgroups). There were also no differences in the unadjusted rates of hospitalization and/or emergency room visits for hyper- and hypoglycemia between the prevalent originator non-switcher and originator switched to biosimilar subgroups (p = 0.09 and 0.38, respectively) or the incident originator non-switcher and incident biosimilar subgroups (p = 0.054 and 0.61, respectively). Finally, none of the HbA1c or hyperglycemia outcomes adjusted for baseline characteristics were statistically different. Adjusted analyses for rates of hospitalization and/or emergency room visits for hypoglycemia could not be performed due to the low number of events. Overall, patients who received insulin glargine-yfgn had similar effectiveness and safety outcomes as patients who received the originator.

Background: Real-world data on use of PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9-Is), with or without statins and/or ezetimibe, and associated outcomes, can inform more effective prescribing. The objective was to evaluate clinical effectiveness and safety of PCSK9-Is within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included Veterans who had at least one outpatient prescription for alirocumab and/or evolocumab filled within VHA between August 21, 2015, and September 30, 2020. Analyses included 4 mutually exclusive subgroups: PCSK9-I alone, PCSK9-I+statin, PCSK9-I+ezetimibe, and PCSK9-I+statin+ezetimibe subgroups. Primary outcomes included medication possession ratio, persistence, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Results: Among Veterans in the analytical cohort (n = 2428), 36.2% were on PCSK9-I monotherapy; 24.0% received a PCSK9-I+statin; 27.4% were on a PCSK9-I+ezetimibe; and 12.4% received triple therapy, that is, PCSK9-I+statin+ezetimibe. The mean medication possession ratio (standard deviation [SD]) for PCSK9-I monotherapy was 83.8% (13.3) compared to 84.3% (11.2) with PCSK9-I+statin therapy, 87.1% (10.1) with PCSK9-I+ezetimibe therapy, and 85.8% (11.7) with triple therapy. The percentage of patients who discontinued PCSK9-I in the monotherapy subgroup was 12.3% vs 9.5%, 6.6%, and 7.4% in the concomitant statin, ezetimibe, and triple-therapy subgroups, respectively (p = .002 among the groups). Mean LDL level was greater in the PCSK9-I monotherapy subgroup (85.6 mg/dL) compared with the concomitant statin (66.5 mg/dL), ezetimibe (65.7 mg/dL), and triple-therapy subgroups (68.1 mg/dL). Conclusions: Veterans showed good adherence and/or persistence with PCSK9-I regimens. On average, those receiving concomitant therapy with a statin and/or ezetimibe achieved significantly lower LDL levels.

Abstract Background The objective of this study is to describe the use of targeted therapies for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and overall survival (OS) among patients in clinical practice in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Methods A retrospective cohort of 286 patients from 24 VHA Medical Centers diagnosed with advanced clear cell RCC between Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 and FY2014 was followed through September 30, 2016. Among patients who received targeted therapy, we described the medications taken, duration of therapy, and overall survival. We also assessed the effect of the first therapy received on overall survival using Cox Proportional Hazards models. Results There were 66 patients who did not receive therapy for their advanced RCC. Of the 220 treated patients, the mean (sd) number of medications received was 1.9 (1.1). The medications most commonly used first were sunitinib (61.8%), pazopanib (17.3%), and temsirolimus (10.9%). The median duration of first‐line therapy was 86 days (interquartile range [IQR] 42, 210). Median total duration of therapy was 159 days (IQR 58, 397). 62.3% of patients had ≥ 1 dose of therapy held or reduced, mainly due to an adverse drug event (ADE). Median survival from the start of treatment to death was 1.08 years (IQR 0.80, 1.31). Finally, receipt of temsirolimus vs sunitinib (HR 1.95 [95%CI 1.09,3.47]) as the first targeted therapy was independently associated with an increased hazard of death. Conclusion Our analysis of targeted therapies for advanced RCC in VHA suggests duration of treatment is shorter in a real‐world setting than in clinical trials, and dose reductions and ADEs are more common.

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between fluoroquinolone (FQ) use and the occurrence of aortic aneurysm/dissection (AA/AD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ventricular arrhythmias (VenA), and all‐cause mortality vs other commonly used antibiotics. We conducted a self‐controlled case series analysis of patients who experienced the outcomes of AA/AD, AMI, and VenA, based on diagnosis codes from emergency department visits and hospitalizations within Veterans Health Administration, and death in FY2014‐FY2018. These Veterans also received outpatient prescriptions for FQs. Conditional Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between FQs and each of the outcomes vs antibiotics of interest (ie amoxicillin or amoxicillin/clavulanate, azithromycin, doxycycline, cefuroxime or cephalexin, or sulfamethoxazole‐trimethoprim), adjusted for time‐varying covariates. Using a 30‐day risk period after each antibiotic prescription, adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) for FQs vs each comparator antibiotic were not statistically different for outcomes of VenA or AMI. For AA/AD, incidence was higher during FQ risk periods vs amoxicillin [aIRR 1.50 (95% CI 1.01, 2.25)] and azithromycin [aIRR 2.15 (95% CI 1.27, 3.64)] risk periods. A significantly increased risk of mortality was observed with FQs vs each antibiotic of interest. FQs were associated with an increased risk of AA/AD vs amoxicillin and azithromycin and an increased risk of all‐cause mortality vs multiple antibiotics commonly used for outpatient infections. Although the differences in event rates are small, FQ use should be limited to serious infections without appropriate alternatives.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) runs the largest integrated healthcare system in the nation. Formulary management within VHA primarily involves 3 national groups: the Medical Advisory Panel, the Veterans Integrated Service Network Formulary Leaders, and the Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Healthcare Group. Together, these groups manage the VHA national drug formulary with a goal of providing a comprehensive, safe, and cost-effective pharmacy benefit for veterans. Traditionally, VHA has relied on cost-minimization analyses in formulary decisions. More recently, VHA has emphasized the use of cost-effectiveness data, especially for newer, costly drugs. In addition to including this data in drug monographs, the VHA has begun requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis from manufacturers of selected pharmaceuticals. VHA has also requested that clinically relevant information such as quality of life plus mortality benefit be made available from industry so that internal cost analyses can be performed. It is hoped that by setting the expectation that cost-effectiveness will be formally considered in all VHA formulary decisions, the pharmaceutical industry and others will be stimulated to collect and report data that enables these analyses. We believe that if other organizations also place an emphasis on economic evaluations, industry and the public will be more accepting of decisions that incorporate cost considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]