Search

Glaucoma is a progressive, irreversible disease that can lead to vision loss and lower quality of life if treatment is not optimized. Effective glaucoma therapies are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) and minimize or delay disease progression. Nonetheless, adherence to treatment remains suboptimal for many patients.To identify potentially nonadherent patients and evaluate the effect of patient- and physician-centric educational interventions on adherence by using a validated predictive model of nonadherence to glaucoma medication.This prospective, randomized, controlled, and interventional study included Humana Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan patients with a glaucoma diagnosis between May and October 2014, ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for glaucoma medication, and ≥ 50% likelihood of nonadherence. Patients and physicians were randomized to cohorts A (no interventions), B (physician intervention), or C (patient and physician interventions). Physicians in cohorts B and C received information on the model, adherence, and patient profiles at baseline and months 3, 6, and 9. Patients in cohort C received educational materials on glaucoma and adherence (same schedule). The primary outcome was the proportion of days covered (PDC) with medication over 12 months. Adherence was defined as PDC ≥ 0.80.Overall, 23,306 patients and 2,955 physicians were eligible. After excluding physicians with3 nonadherent patients, each cohort included 200 physicians and 600 patients. Mean PDC was 0.54-0.56 across cohorts. At 12 months, ≥ 90.5% of physicians and ≥ 75.5% of patients remained in the study; mean PDC was 0.53-0.54 across cohorts. No statistically significant between-cohort differences in PDC and adherence were observed.Intensive educational mailings to patients and their physicians did not improve PDC or adherence in this large population of potentially nonadherent patients with glaucoma. Findings highlight the difficulty of improving adherence in a disease that requires lifelong therapy despite being largely asymptomatic and can inform development of future interventions aimed at improving adherence to glaucoma therapy.This study was sponsored by Allergan plc (Dublin, Ireland). Fiscella and Chandwani are employees of Allergan plc. Caplan, Kamble, Bunniran, and Uribe are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a Humana company. The authors did not receive honoraria or other payments for authorship.

Switching drug manufacturers in transplant patients may require an increased intensity of therapeutic monitoring, leading to additional healthcare visits, associated laboratory tests, and perhaps hospitalizations. As real-world studies examining the interchangeability of tacrolimus from different manufacturers are limited, the purpose of this study was to examine the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and economic impact of tacrolimus-switching in kidney transplantation.This cross-sectional, retrospective study examined HRU and healthcare costs (HCCs) among patients with a kidney transplant who were prescribed tacrolimus from fixed-source (FS) vs variable-source (VS) manufacturers using claims data from the large US health plan Humana from October 1, 2012, to December 31, 2013.Overall, 1,024 patients were identified (FS: n = 674, 66%; VS: n = 350, 34%). The number of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) events for the VS group was 13% greater than for the FS group after controlling for demographics, comorbidity score, and number of medications (incidence rate ratio = 1.13, p = .033). Adjusted total HCCs were 9% lower for VS (US$28,054 vs US$30,823, p = .045). In the unadjusted analysis, VS had greater emergency department (ED) utilization (45% vs 35%, p .002). In the VS group, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of days from manufacturer switch to first outpatient visit was 23.8 (33.6), and the number of days (SD) to first TDM event was 43.6 (56.2).Study limitations include the lack of availability of many transplant-specific variables within the Humana database, potential errors/omissions in claims coding, and restriction of cross-sectional data examination to a 1-year period.VS patients had greater TDM and lower total HCCs. Further research is warranted to understand the drivers of ED use among the VS group, and to determine factors associated with delayed TDM after regimen modification. Opportunities may exist to improve the quality of care for patients receiving immunosuppressant treatment with tacrolimus.

Clinical inertia, which has been defined as the recognition of a problem with a patient's management but failing to act, is a concern in type 2 diabetes (T2D) because it places the patient at risk of diabetes-related complications. Despite managed care organizations making significant investment in this area, little is known about the impact of educational programs aimed at aligning patients and their physicians with diabetes guidelines and thus overcoming clinical inertia.To assess the impact of an educational intervention specifically designed to align patients and their physicians with 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines on glycated hemoglobin (A1c) testing frequency and insulin initiation.The "Act on Threes" educational intervention was a 12-month, randomized controlled prospective study that included Medicare Advantage patients aged 18-85 years with T2D, who received ≥ 3 oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) and/or had A1c not at goal and/or had no recent A1c evaluation over 12 months, as identified through the analysis of administrative claims data (May 1, 2011-April 30, 2013) from the Humana database. Identified patients were randomized 3:1 to receive the Act on Threes educational intervention in conjunction with standard care (intervention group) or standard care alone (control group). For the educational intervention, patients and physicians were simultaneously mailed general and targeted information aimed at aligning them to 3 vital aspects of A1c control: timely measurement of A1c every 3 months; timely treatment intensification to meet A1c goals with treatment intensification every 3 months if A1c is not at goal; and insulin initiation when appropriate, including patients receiving ≥ 3 OADs with A1c not at goal. Control patients were only enrolled if the treating physician was not involved in the care of any patients in the intervention group. The primary outcome measures were A1c testing frequency based on the ADA standard for compliance of ≥ 2 tests per year and insulin initiation in the 12-month postintervention period. A1c levels were evaluated for the subgroup of patients with available A1c measurements in the pre- and postintervention periods. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze differences between the intervention and control groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify determinants of insulin initiation in the full study cohort.6,243 patients (mean age 70 years; 43.5% female) were identified: 4,555 were randomized to the intervention group and 1,688 to the control group. The percentage of patients with ≥ 2 A1c tests per year was not significantly different postintervention for patients in the intervention and control groups (47.7% vs. 46.8%, respectively; P = 0.995). Intriguingly, the frequency of A1c testing increased significantly from pre- to postintervention in the intervention and control groups. Change in A1c level from pre- to postintervention was also similar for the 2 groups (P = 0.240). A similar percentage of patients in the intervention and control groups initiated insulin during the postintervention period (6.3% vs. 7.6%, respectively; P = 0.059).This randomized controlled study demonstrated that, compared with standard care, the Act on Threes educational intervention combined with standard care did not result in any significant differences in the frequency of A1c testing or in the initiation of insulin in patients with T2D. These findings are in contrast to uncontrolled comparative studies showing significant improvements in outcomes postintervention and reinforce the importance of study design in evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs.This study was funded by Sanofi U.S. Reynolds, Davis, Kamble, and Uribe are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, which was contracted by Sanofi U.S. to conduct, publish, and present this study. Bieszk and Wei are employees of Sanofi U.S. Reynolds and Uribe provided expertise and key clinical insights for the study design and methodology, provided interpretations of the data, contributed to the discussion, and reviewed the manuscript. Bieszk and Wei codeveloped the study design, researched data, contributed to discussion, and reviewed the manuscript. Davis and Kamble collected the data, provided study design, clinical insights, statistical and analytic reflections of the data, drafted the study reports, and reviewed the manuscript. All authors had full access to all the data in the study. Reynolds is the guarantor of this work and, as such, takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.Writing/editorial support in the preparation of this manuscript, which was funded by Sanofi U.S., was provided by Rosalie Gadiot, PhD, of Excerpta Medica, who wrote the initial draft of the manuscript.