Search

Objectives: To explore formulary restrictions on noninsulin antihyperglycemic drugs (NIADs) in Medicare Part D plans and to estimate the impact of formulary restrictions on use of NIADs among low-income subsidy (LIS) recipient enrollees with type 2 diabetes (T2D) undergoing treatment intensification., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Methods: A cohort of 2919 LIS enrollees with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy during the first quarter of 2012 who intensified treatment later in the year was tracked to assess selection of and days' supply with sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and other NIADs. We tested whether being enrolled in a Part D plan with significant formulary restrictions on sole-source brand name NIADs reduced the likelihood of receiving such agents and, if so, what the impact was on days of therapy with the second agent. A 2-part regression model was estimated with explanatory variables for plan-level restrictions and individual covariates., Results: We found that 63% of study subjects initiated a sulfonylurea, 25% a DPP-4 inhibitor, and 12% another NIAD. Greater restrictions on DPP-4 inhibitors as a class were associated with small reductions in initiation of DPP-4 inhibitors and a concomitant increase in use of sulfonylureas, but neither effect was statistically significant. For individual DPP-4 inhibitors, step therapy requirements on sitagliptin and formulary exclusion of saxagliptin resulted in significant reductions in uptake of the specific drugs but had no significant impact on total days' supply of antihyperglycemic therapy., Conclusions: Part D formulary restrictions on sole-source brand name NIADs had little impact on patterns of treatment intensification for T2D among LIS recipients enrolled in Medicare Part D plans in 2012.

Objective: Clinical practice guidelines underscore the need for careful evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio of psychotropic medications treating mental health disorders among youth. While it is well known that racial/ethnic disparities exist in psychotropic medication use, little is known about whether these differences are driven by over-prescribing among white youth, under-prescribing among minority youth, or both. To build evidence in this area, this study examined racial/ethnic differences in the prescription of psychotropic medications among youth with and without psychological impairment., Methods: Secondary data on two-year medication use from the 2004-2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were analyzed. We capitalized on two-year panel data, creating variables that allow for differential sequencing of psychological impairment and medication prescription (e.g., impairment in year 1 or year 2, and a psychotropic medication fill in year 2). Statistical differences were determined using unadjusted rate comparisons and logistic regression models, after adjustment for socio-contextual and health status characteristics., Results: Compared to Black and Latino youth with psychological impairment, White youth were more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medications when impaired. Among youth never having psychological impairment, White youth were also more likely to be prescribed medications compared to their racial/ethnic minority counterparts., Conclusions: Differences in rates of medication use among youth with and without impairment suggest poor medication targeting across racial/ethnic groups. These results, combined with recent psychotropic medication risk warnings and concerns over increases in psychotropic medication use among youth, suggest that a continued emphasis on accurate targeting of prescribing patterns is needed across racial/ethnic groups., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)