T. Christopher Bond

Purpose: Drivers of excess controlled substance disposal behaviors are not well understood. A survey of patients who had received opioid-based medications was conducted to inform the design of future innovative drug take-back programs. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey study conducted in 152 participants who received treatment with an opioid within the previous 2 years and had possession of unused medication following either switching to a different opioid or discontinuation of pain. Results: Approximately one-third of patients had disposed of their unused opioid medication. Education about the importance of and appropriate methods for drug disposal was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of patients disposing of unused medication, and it was observed that patients prescribed an immediate-release/short-acting opioid were twice as likely to keep their medication compared to those prescribed an extended-release/long-acting opioid. The most commonly reported methods for disposal were via drug return kiosks and flushing the medication down the toilet. Some of the most impactful drivers of unused opioid disposal were routine practice of disposing of all unused drugs and instruction from a health care provider, and the most common driver of keeping unused medication was the desire to have it on-hand should there be a need to treat pain in the future. Over 80 % of patients indicated that they would be more likely to use a drug take-back service if they were offered compensation or if the kiosk was in a location that they visited frequently, and approximately half of the patients indicated that they would be willing to request an initial partial fill of an opioid prescription to reduce the volume of unused medication. Conclusion: There is a clear need to increase patient awareness about the importance and methods of proper medication disposal, and a great opportunity for health care providers to increase patient education efforts. These study findings also highlight key areas for improvement in drug take-back programs that may promote and incentivize more patients to utilize the services.

Background and objective: Hydrocodone bitartrate extended release (Hysingla^® ER, HYD) was previously studied in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 52-week open-label safety study. Both of these preapproval studies allowed dose titration to efficacy. The purpose of the present analysis was to compare dosing and utilization patterns in these previous clinical trials with real-world data (RWD) usage in a retrospective claim analysis performed 12–14 months post approval in the US. Methods: In the claim analysis (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan^® Research Database), patients prescribed HYD between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, were followed for up to 6 months of continuous HYD use. Daily average consumption (DACON), initial dose, rescue opioid use and total milligram dose over time were also evaluated. Results: HYD daily dose stabilized at ~60 mg dose once daily across all three studies. There was also a reduced need for rescue medication with HYD, resulting in a lower total opioid milligram dose over time. In the claim analysis, the mean monthly HYD dose increased from 49 to 55 mg in month 2 and then remained stable through month 6. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time on drug was 79.5 days (61.42 days), and DACON was 1.04 pills/day, corresponding to the approved full prescribing information (FPI) and once-daily dosing. Conclusion: In 12–14 months post approval, real-world dosing and utilization of HYD mirrored registration and open-label study findings, with stable once-daily dosing of ~60 mg and no increase in rescue medicine utilization.

Background: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods: Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator. Results: This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2–4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2–4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0.45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2–4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim. Conclusions: Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.

Background: Limited well-controlled research exists examining the impact of different formulations of oral vitamin D on clinical outcomes in dialysis patients, specifically those on peritoneal dialysis. For this retrospective mortality analysis, we compared mortality rates of patients on 3 of the most commonly prescribed vitamin D agents. Methods: We examined 2 years (7/1/2008 to 6/30/2010) of oral medication records of peritoneal dialysis patients from a large US dialysis organization. Patients were identified whose physicians prescribed a single form of vitamin D (calcitriol, paricalcitol, or doxercalciferol) for ≥ 90% of all patient-months. We excluded incident patients (< 90 days on dialysis) and patients whose physicians treated < 5 peritoneal dialysis patients at a dialysis facility, and we assessed mortality. Results: The analysis inclusion criteria identified 1,707 patients. The subset in this analysis included 12.6% of all prevalent peritoneal dialysis patients and 11.8% of prevalent patient-months. Patients with physicians who predominately prescribed calcitriol had a lower mortality rate: 9.33 (confidence interval (CI) 7.06, 11.60) deaths per 100 patient-years than the doxercalciferol, 12.20 (CI 9.34, 15.06) or paricalcitol, 12.27 (CI 9.27, 15.28) groups. However, these differences were not statistically significant. A Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for differences in age, vintage, gender, race, body mass index, and comorbidities also showed no significant differences. Conclusions: For this peritoneal dialysis population, instrumental variable analyses showed no significant difference in mortality in patients taking the most common oral vitamin D formulations (calcitriol, doxercalciferol, paricalcitol).

One of the most common conditions affecting end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) is pruritus. Studies report that itchy and dry skin, symptoms of pruritus, affect 40%–90% of ESRD patients. Yet, in clinical practice the condition is often underdiagnosed resulting in inadequate management and an underappreciated impact on patient outcomes. Two retrospective analyses were conducted: a preliminary analysis of ESRD patients with pruritus symptoms (n=73,124) undergoing HD or peritoneal dialysis at a large dialysis provider and a subsequent detailed analysis of a homogenous subset of patients undergoing in-center HD (n=38,315). The goal was to better understand the clinical burden of pruritus as it relates to patient characteristics, quality of life, medication use, and HD compliance. This population is commonly burdened by multiple comorbidities and related polypharmaceutical management; identifying the relationship of pruritus to these ailments can help guide future research and resource allocation. The detailed analysis confirmed trends observed in the preliminary analysis: 30% reported being "moderately" to "extremely bothered" by itchiness. The HD patient population with the highest severity of self-reported pruritus also had a consistent trend in overall increased resource utilization – higher monthly doses of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (53,397.1 to 63,405.4 units) and intravenous (IV) iron (237.2 to 247.6 units) and higher use of IV antibiotics (14.1% to 20.7%), as well as poorer quality-of-life measures (25-point reductions in Burden of Disease Score and Effects on Daily Life subscales of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 survey). These results highlight the need to better identify and manage ESRD patients impacted by pruritus, as this symptom is associated with negative clinical outcomes and increased resource utilization. Further studies are needed to evaluate the current economic burden of pruritus in ESRD patients and create possible options for an improved pharmacoeconomic profile in this patient population.

Background: Ferric citrate (FC) is a phosphate binder in development for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In clinical trials, FC improved patient serum phosphorus levels and increased serum ferritin and percent transferrin saturation. Because nephrologists respond to increases in these iron measures by reducing intravenous (IV) iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) doses, the decreased use of iron and ESA associated with FC may reduce costs. Objectives: To develop a cost-offset model from a managed care perspective estimating the cost savings associated with FC use. Methods: We created a cost-offset model from the managed care payer perspective that compared the treatment costs of ESRD for patients given FC. The model considered the number of dialysis sessions per month; number of ESRD patients enrolled in the health plan; cost of ESAs, iron, and dialysis sessions; and the proportion of patients on phosphate binder therapy. The model assumed equivalent efficacy and cost neutrality between FC and other phosphate binders. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted by varying model inputs. Results: When FC was compared to other phosphate binders, the monthly cost of ESA and IV iron per 500 patients with ESRD (85% treated with phosphate binders) was reduced by 8.15% and 33.2%, respectively. When incorporated into the total cost of dialysis for patients with ESRD (dialysis, ESA, and IV iron), the decrease in the monthly cost of dialysis care was US$80,214 per 500 ESRD patients. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that a plan serving 500 dialysis patients could save between US$626,000 and US$1,106,000 annually with the use of FC. Conclusion: The use of FC in ESRD patients with hyperphosphatemia may help reduce treatment costs.

Morbidity, hospitalizations, and costs for the treatment of individuals with end-stage renal disease are simply not improving at a rate that is acceptable to many physicians and dialysis providers in the United States. Various conferences and papers have suggested what processes need to become part of the dialysis prescription to accelerate change. Controlling cardiovascular disease is a part of that change, and controlling extra-cellular volume (ECV) is necessary to accomplish this. Three dialysis providers joined in a quality initiative to objectively assess the ultrafiltration process and measure "normalized" ECV, with the outcome objective to decrease ECV-related hospitalizations. The results show a decrease in ECV-related hospitalizations by 50%. The model of dialysis prescription needs to now change to Kt/V + objective ECV control.

Medical Evidence Report Form CMS-2728 data is frequently used to study US dialysis patients, but the validity of these data have been called into question. We compared predialysis erythropoietin use as recorded on Form CMS-2728 with claims data as part of an assessment of quality of care among hemodialysis patients. Medicare claims were linked to Form CMS-2728 data for 18,870 patients. Dialysis patients, 67 years old or older, who started dialysis from 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2007 were eligible. Logistic and multivariate regressions were used to compare the use of either Form CMS-2728 or the corresponding claims data to predict mortality and the probability of meeting target hemoglobin levels. The sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient for the predialysis erythropoietin indicator were 58.0%, 78.4%, and 0.36, respectively. Patients with a predialysis erythropoietin claim were less likely to die compared with patients without a claim (odds ratio = 0.80 and 95% confidence interval = 0.74–0.87), but there was no relationship observed between predialysis care and death using only Form CMS-2728 predictors. At the facility level, a predialysis erythropoietin claim was associated with a 0.085 increase in the rate of meeting target hemoglobin levels compared with patients without a claim (p = 0.041), but no statistically significant relationship was observed when using the Form CMS-2728 indicators. The agreement between Form CMS-2728 and claims data is poor and discordant results are observed when comparing the use of these data sources to predict health outcomes. Facilities with higher agreement between the two data sources may provide greater quality of care.