John Ko

Increasing Patient Involvement in Drug Development

BACKGROUND To ensure the creation of treatments that maximize value at the lowest cost, all aspects of the health care system need to align with patient needs and preferences. Despite growing efforts to engage patients in research and regulatory activities, the pharmaceutical industry has yet to maximize patient involvement in the drug development process. OBJECTIVE To gain a better understanding of the present state of patient involvement in drug development. METHODS Through a semistructured interview methodology, we sought to identify opportunities, barriers, and examples of patient involvement in the drug development process. Telephone interviews were conducted with six senior leaders of evidence generation within the pharmaceutical industry and four patients. These interviews were supplemented with interviews with a research funder, a regulator, a patient advocacy group, and a caregiver. RESULTS Although our interviewees spoke of the potential benefits of aligning research around the needs of patients, there were few examples they could share to suggest this was occurring at scale. A number of barriers were identified including the added burden associated with adverse event reporting, concerns about patient representativeness or their ability to participate in drug development conversations, and the costs in time and resources involved relative to returns on investment. CONCLUSIONS As health care systems continue to evolve and establish patients as the primary stakeholder in their health care decision making, the pharmaceutical industry will need to be innovative to demonstrate the value of their products relative to the outcomes experienced by patients. Pharmaceutical companies should recognize the value of involving patients across the entire product life cycle and work to transform present perceptions and practices throughout their organizations.

Analysis of Glycemic Control of a Pharmacist-Led Medication Management Program in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND An integrated health care system with its own regional health plan located in Texas implemented a pharmacist-led diabetes medication management program (MMP) to treat type 2 diabetic patients (baseline A1c > 7.5%). The MMP formed collaborative practice agreements with the systems physicians to allow ambulatory care pharmacists to modify and adjust diabetic drug regimens when appropriate. Enrolled MMP patients received personalized visits with ambulatory care pharmacists and a copay waiver on diabetes medications. OBJECTIVE To study the outcomes of an outpatient, pharmacist-led MMP, along with a copay waiver on diabetes drugs, in treating adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus over a 2-year period compared with standard care practice. METHODS This retrospective study employed a quasi-experimental design and used medical claims, pharmacy claims, eligibility data, and electronic medical records. Patients aged 18 to 62 years, who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and had at least 1 diabetes-related pharmacy claim in the year before the MMP, as well as continuous enrollment in the health plan, were included. Patients enrolled in the pharmacist-led MMP for at least 2 years (n =75) were matched to standard care patients (n =75) on age, gender, baseline A1c, insulin use, and physical comorbidity. The primary outcome was the 2-year change in A1c. Secondary outcomes included inpatient costs, outpatient costs, and pharmacy costs from the baseline period (year before enrollment) compared with the follow-up period (second year of enrollment). RESULTS After matching MMP patients (n = 75) to control patients (n = 75), the baseline A1c (9.30 and 9.26), the mean age (53.0 and 53.3, respectively), the Selim Physical Score (3.32 and 3.26, respectively), and the use of insulin (56.0% and 56.0%, respectively) were similar in both groups. MMP patients had a greater mean reduction in A1c compared with standard care patients (-1.24 vs. -0.59, P = 0.009) from baseline to after 2 years. After 2 years, the A1c for MMP patients was significantly lower compared with control patients (8.06 vs.8.67, respectively, P = 0.014). There was also a difference in A1c after 1 year for MMP patients versus control patients (8.18 and 8.69, respectively, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS A pharmacist-led diabetes MMP, combined with a diabetes drug copay waiver, was effective in significantly reducing A1c over a 2-year period for type 2 diabetic patients in this regional health plan.

Real-World Adherence and Persistence to Oral Disease-Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Over 1 Year

BACKGROUND Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are indicated to reduce relapse rates and slow disease progression for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) patients when taken as prescribed. Nonadherence or non-persistence in the real-world setting can lead to greater risk for negative clinical outcomes. Although previous research has demonstrated greater adherence and persistence to oral DMTs compared with injectable DMTs, comparisons among oral DMTs are lacking. OBJECTIVE To compare adherence, persistence, and time to discontinuation among MS patients newly prescribed the oral DMTs fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide. METHODS This retrospective study used MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. MS patients with ≥ 1 claim for specified DMTs from April 1, 2013, to June 30, 2013, were identified. The index drug was defined as the first oral DMT within this period. To capture patients newly initiating index DMTs, patients could not have a claim for their index drugs in the previous 12 months. Baseline characteristics were described for patients in each treatment cohort. Adherence, as measured by medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC); persistence (30-day gap allowed); and time to discontinuation over a 12-month follow-up period were compared across treatment cohorts. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine adherence, and Cox regression models estimated risk of discontinuation. RESULTS 1,498 patients newly initiated oral DMTs and met study inclusion criteria: fingolimod (n = 185), dimethyl fumarate (n = 1,160), and teriflunomide (n = 143). Patients were similar across most baseline characteristics, including region, relapse history, and health care resource utilization. Statistically significant differences were observed across the treatment cohorts for age, gender, previous injectable/infused DMT use, and comorbidities. Adherence and time to discontinuation were adjusted for age, gender, region, previous oral and injectable/infused DMT use, relapse history, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Relative to fingolimod patients, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide patients were significantly less likely to have an MPR ≥ 80% (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.09-0.36; P < 0.001 and OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.08-0.42; P < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, relative to fingolimod patients, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide patients were significantly less likely to have PDC ≥ 80% (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001 and OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.23-0.59; P < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, the HR for discontinuation was about 2 times greater for dimethyl fumarate (HR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.44-2.59; P < 0.001) and teriflunomide patients (HR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.57-3.28; P < 0.001) compared with fingolimod. CONCLUSIONS In a real-world setting, patients taking fingolimod had better adherence and persistence compared with patients taking other oral DMTs over 12 months. Coupled with clinical factors, medication adherence and persistence should be important considerations when determining coverage decisions for MS patients. DISCLOSURES This research was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Johnson, Lin, Ko, and Herrera are employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals and own Novartis stock. Huanxue Zhou is employed by KMK Consulting, which provides consulting services to Novartis. Study concept and design were contributed by Johnson, Lin, Ko, and Herrera. Zhou collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Johnson, Lin, Ko, and Herrera. All authors were involved in manuscript revision. The abstract for this study was presented at the AMCP Nexus 2015; October 26-29, 2015; Orlando, Florida.

The impact of disease-modifying therapy access barriers on multiple sclerosis patients: A mixed methods study. (Preprint)

Background In the United States, people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) can face difficulty accessing disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) because of insurance, pharmacy, or provider policies. These barriers have been associated with poor adherence and negative health outcomes. Objective The goals of this study were to describe the overall occurrence of difficulties and delays associated with gaining access to DMTs among people with RRMS, to assess DMT adherence during periods of reduced access, and to contextualize the patients’ journey from receipt of a prescription for DMT to obtaining and taking their medication when faced with access barriers. Methods We recruited US-based adults self-reporting RRMS from a Web-based health data-sharing social network, PatientsLikeMe. Individuals were invited to complete a Web-based survey if they reported a diagnosis of RRMS and were prescribed a DMT for MS. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with 10 respondents who reported experiencing an MS-related relapse during the time they had experienced challenges accessing DMTs. Results Among 507 survey completers, nearly half were either currently experiencing an issue related to DMT assess or had difficulty accessing a DMT in the past (233/507, 46.0%). The most frequently reported reasons for access difficulty were authorization requirements by insurance companies (past issues: 78/182, 42.9%; current issues: 9/42, 21%) and high out-of-pocket costs (past issues: 54/182, 29.7%; current issues: 13/42, 31%). About half (20/39, 51%) of participants with current access issues and over a third (68/165, 41.2%) of those with past issues went without their medication until they could access their prescribed DMT. Relapses were reported during periods of reduced DMT access for almost half (56/118, 47.5%) of those with past issues and nearly half (22/45, 49%) of those with current issues. Resolving access issues involved multiple stakeholder agents often coordinated in a patient-led effort. Among those who had resolved issues, about half (57/119, 47.9%) reported that doctors or office staff were involved, under half (48/119, 40.3%) were involved themselves, and about a third (39/119, 32.8%) reported the drug manufacturer was involved in resolving the issue. Follow-up interviews revealed that the financial burden associated with obtaining a prescribed DMT led to nonadherence. Additionally, participants felt that DMT treatment delays and stress associated with obtaining the DMT triggered relapses or worsened their MS. Conclusions This study expands current research by using a patient-centered, mixed-methods approach to describe barriers to MS treatment, the process to resolve barriers, and the perceived impact of treatment barriers on outcomes. Issues related to DMT access occur frequently, with individuals often serving as their own agents when navigating access difficulties to obtain their medication(s). Support for resolution of DMT access is needed to prevent undue stress and nonadherence.

Outcomes-Based Contracting Experience: Research Findings from U.S. and European Stakeholders

BACKGROUND Outcomes-based contracts (OBCs), a type of risk-sharing arrangement (RSA), have emerged as a promising avenue for payers to engage with pharmaceutical manufacturers to share risk and improve patient access to medicines via evaluation of real-world outcomes. OBJECTIVE To assess the level of recent OBC activity and stakeholder perceptions of these arrangements, as well as the outlook for future OBC activity from a payer and manufacturer perspective in the United States and EU-5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). METHODS Using a structured questionnaire, interviews were conducted with 27 experts, including 14 U.S. payers, 5 EU-5 national payers, and 8 manufacturer pricing/market access executives (4 U.S., 4 EU-5). We also used the University of Washingtons Performance Based Risk-Sharing (PBRS) database and other targeted publicly available information. RESULTS Publicly disclosed information on OBCs understates the level of OBC activity, since many arrangements are confidential. Overall, U.S. and EU-5 interviewees generally expected that 2 to 3 times more OBCs would be implemented in the next 5 years than in the previous 5 years. Key drivers included the introduction of a national OBC framework in Spain, potentially a similar framework in the United Kingdom, a growing sickness fund activity in Germany, and a U.S. movement towards accountable care. Motivation for OBCs varied markedly across markets and stakeholders, with operational feasibility noted as a significant hurdle in the United States and France. Along with improving health outcomes, cost and financial risk reduction were the primary OBC motivators for payers, while potential access or reimbursement gains were key factors for manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS Using direct input from U.S. and EU-5 payer and pharmaceutical manufacturer decision makers, this research suggests that high OBC growth is expected in the EU-5 and, to a more moderate extent, in the United States, particularly if clear, simpler OBC frameworks can be developed. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Novartis employees were involved in all aspects of this study. Vegesna and Sasane are employed by and own stock in Novartis. Nazareth and Ko were employees of Novartis at the time of this study. Frois, Demean, Carpenter, and Wu are or have been employed by Analysis Group, which received a grant from Novartis for this research. Navarro received consulting fees from Novartis for his involvement in this research. Study concept and design were contributed by Sasane, Frois, Nazareth, and Wu. Navarro, Demean, and Frois took the lead in data collection, assisted by Carpenter, Ko, and Nazareth. Data interpretation was provided by Frois, Carpenter, Nazareth, and Ko, along with Sasane, Demean, Wu, and Navarro. The manuscript was written by Frois, Demean, Nazareth, and Ko, along with Sasane, Carpenter, Wu, and Navarro, and revised by Frois, Ko, and Vegesna, along with Sasane, Nazareth, Wu, and Navarro.

The Effect of Formulary Restrictions on Patient and Payer Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND Formulary restrictions are implemented to reduce pharmacy costs and ensure appropriate use of pharmaceutical products. As adoption of formulary restrictions increases with rising pharmacy costs, there is a need to better understand the potential effect of formulary restrictions on patient and payer outcomes. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic literature review that assesses the effect of formulary restrictions on the following outcomes: medication adherence, clinical outcomes, treatment satisfaction, drug utilization, health care resource utilization, and economic outcomes. METHODS Studies published in 2005 or later were identified from the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, using 2 sets of search terms. A total of 17 formulary restriction terms (e.g., step therapy [ST] and prior authorization [PA]) and 55 outcome terms were included, resulting in 935 unique search term combinations. Two reviewers independently conducted analyses of the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. The search was limited to English-language articles that evaluated the effect of ST and/or PA placed by U.S. third-party payers on the following outcomes: patient outcomes (medication adherence, clinical outcomes, and treatment satisfaction) and payer outcomes (drug utilization, health care resource utilization, and economic outcomes). RESULTS Of 2,321 reviewed articles, 59 articles met the study inclusion criteria. The included studies assessed the effect of ST (n = 18), PA (n = 35), or both (n = 6) on medication adherence (n = 14), clinical outcomes (n = 12), treatment satisfaction (n = 2), drug utilization (n = 39), health care resource utilization (n = 18), and economic outcomes (n = 42). The 59 articles measured 164 outcomes across the patient, health care resource utilization, and economic outcome categories of interest. Of the total number of outcomes, 50.6% (n = 83) were negative in direction or were unfavorable, whereas 40.2% (n = 66) were positive in direction or were favorable, when the perspectives of patients and payers were considered. Of the total number of drug utilization outcomes reported (n = 46), the majority showed lower drug utilization (> 90%). However, in some of the articles, pharmacy cost savings resulting from lower drug utilization appeared to be offset by increased medical costs. CONCLUSIONS Formulary coverage decisions may have unintended consequences on patient and payer outcomes despite lower drug utilization and pharmacy cost savings; therefore, careful evaluation of restrictions before policy implementation and continued reevaluation after implementation is warranted. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Park and Ko are employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals in East Hanover, New Jersey, and Ko holds stock in Novartis. Raza, George, and Agrawal are employed by Novartis Healthcare in Hyderabad, India. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Park and Ko, along with the other authors. Raza, George, and Agrawal collected the data, along with Park and Ko. Data interpretation was performed by Agrawal, Raza, George, Park, and Ko. The manuscript was written and revised by Raza, George, and Park, along with Ko and Agrawal. Results from this systematic literature review were presented at the AMCP Annual Meeting 2016; San Francisco, California; April 19-22, 2016.