IMPACTS OF BLACK BOX WARNING, NATIONAL COVERAGE DETERMINATION, AND RISK EVALUATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ON THE INPATIENT ON-LABEL AND OFF-LABEL USE OF ERYTHROPOIESIS-STIMULATING AGENTS
Author(s)
Seetasith A*, Holdford DA Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantify the impact of (1) black box warning, (2) CMS National Coverage Determination (NCD), and (3) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on-label and off-label utilization patterns among adult inpatients. METHODS: Electronic health records in Cerner HealthFact database from January 2005 to June 2011 were used. Eligible patients for ESA prescribing were categorized using ICD-9-CM codes and medication information. The three patient categories were (1) on-label (ONS, conditions approved by the FDA); (2) off-label supported (OFS, strong clinical evidence for use in unapproved indications); and (3) off-label unsupported (OFU, low/no evidence supporting use in unapproved indications). The likelihood of receiving ESAs was assessed using a generalized estimating equation approach with binary logistic regression technique, clustering for hospitals, and controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 730,421 patients with ONS conditions (33,004 users, 4.5%), 505, 658 with OFS conditions (5,140 users, 1.0%), and 558,917 patients with OFU conditions (4,491 users, 0.8%). Black box warning and REMS had no impact on the odds of receiving ESAs. There was a significant decline in all three use categories the month following NCD. ONS patients were 13% less likely to receive ESAs (OR 0.867, 95% CI 0.762, 0.986, p = 0.0299). OFS patients were 20% less likely (OR 0.799, 95% CI 0.716, 0.891, p <0.0001) and OFU patients were 38% less likely to receive ESAs (OR 0.622, 95% CI 0.474, 0.817, p = 0.0006). Age, gender, race, source of payment, admission type, clinical complexity, discharge disposition, and hospital size were significantly associated with on-label and off-label use. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the relative impact of three safety interventions on on-label and off-label ESA use in the hospital settings. Reimbursement change may have unintentionally reduced the likelihood of receiving ESAs in patients who could have otherwise benefited.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2013-05, ISPOR 2013, New Orleans, LA, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 16, No. 3 (May 2013)
Code
PSY91
Topic
Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Topic Subcategory
Prescribing Behavior
Disease
Multiple Diseases, Systemic Disorders/Conditions