Saving Medicare through Patient-Centered Changes - The Case of Injectables
Department of Critical Care, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 55.87). 04/2013; 368(17):1572-3. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1213485
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Secukinumab, a fully human anti–IL-17A monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis when administered via subcutaneous injection. Self-administration by pre-filled syringe (PFS) can offer patients clinical benefits of a drug, with increased convenience.Objectives Assess efficacy, safety, and usability of secukinumab administration via PFS in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.Methods Subjects in this phase 3 trial were randomized 1:1:1 to secukinumab 300 or 150 mg or matching placebo. Results to Week 12 are presented here. Each treatment was delivered using a PFS once-weekly to Week 4, and again at Week 8. Co-primary endpoints were secukinumab superiority over placebo for Week 12 PASI 75 and IGA mod 2011 0/1 response rates. Secondary endpoints included PFS usability, determined by observer rating of successful, hazard-free self-injection and subject rating of acceptability by the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ).ResultsCo-primary endpoints were met, with demonstration of superiority for each secukinumab dose vs. placebo at Week 12 (PASI 75: 75.9%, 69.5%, and 0% for secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg and placebo; IGA mod 2011 0/1: 69.0%, 52.5%, and 0%, respectively; P<0.0001 for all comparisons vs. placebo). PFS usability was high: 100% of subjects successfully self-administered treatment at Week 1, and subjects reported high SIAQ-assessed acceptability of the PFS throughout the trial. No new/unexpected safety signals were observed.Conclusions Secukinumab administration by PFS was effective, with an acceptable safety profile and high usability. The PFS provides a reliable, convenient form of secukinumab administration in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.British Journal of Dermatology 08/2014; 172(2). DOI:10.1111/bjd.13348 · 4.28 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Medicare Part D prescription benefits cover injected medications, normally covered under Part B, when administered outside of physician offices. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) used for chronic anemia management in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are commonly injected in a physician office but can be administered safely at home. In this study, we explored out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and receipt of Part D-covered ESAs in Medicare beneficiaries with MDS. Patients with MDS enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D were identified using diagnosis codes from 100% claims from 2006 to 2008. OOP costs for the mean erythropoietin alfa claim were compared for Parts B and D. Multivariable models examined the effect of low-income subsidy (LIS) and other Part D cost sharing on receipt of any ESA and any Part D-covered ESA. A total of 13,117 (62.9%) of 20,848 patients received ESAs, but only 1,436 (6.9%) had any Part D claim. OOP payment was $348 under Part D versus $161 under Part B. Among patients with ESA use, those with LIS were 4× more likely to receive Part D ESAs (P < .01). Few patients with MDS received ESAs through Part D. OOP payments required under Part D were substantially higher than under Part B. Cost sharing, as reflected by LIS receipt, likely affected decisions to prescribe ESAs outside of the physician office. Improved coordination between Part B and D benefits regarding issues of home injection of medications may create incentives that improve patient access and convenience and reduce costs associated with administration. Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.Journal of Oncology Practice 01/2015; 11(2). DOI:10.1200/JOP.2014.001527
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.