• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

糖尿病患者切换使用非医学 DPP-4 抑制剂的成本和临床影响。

Cost and clinical impact of a nonmedical DPP-4 inhibitor switch in patients with diabetes.

机构信息

Wilkes University, Nesbitt School of Pharmacy, Wilkes-Barre, PA.

Geisinger Center for Health Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Danville, PA.

出版信息

J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Jul;27(7):846-854. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.7.846.

DOI:10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.7.846
PMID:34185559
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10390945/
Abstract

Nonmedical formulary switches (NMFS) routinely occur in managed health care plans and involve changing preferred medications for reasons outside of clinical considerations. The cost implications of NMFS are infrequently published and the clinical outcomes rarely assessed. To assess the real-world clinical and cost implications of an NMFS involving sitagliptin and linagliptin. An NMFS was made to the Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) commercial, health care reform, and Medicaid formularies on February 1, 2018, involving a change in preferred medication from sitagliptin to linagliptin. Claims data from GHP and clinical information from electronic health records of the Geisinger Health System were used to evaluate the cost and clinical impact of this change. Patients aged 18 years or older who were continuously enrolled in a GHP commercial, health care reform, or Medicaid plan throughout the entire study period and had at least 1 fill for sitagliptin during the preswitch phase were included in the study. We investigated the differences in various clinical and economic outcomes from pre- to postswitch among those who switched and remained adherent to the new preferred therapy throughout the 12-month postperiod ("linagliptin switch" group) and patients who did not ("other switch" group). Clinical outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, diabetes-related hospitalization, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), while economic measures included changes in per member per month (PMPM) spending. The negative binomial regression model was used to estimate utilization counts. A generalized linear model with a log link and gamma distribution was used to analyze cost data. 1,203 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 501 (41.6%) individuals switched to and remained at least 80% adherent to linagliptin in the postperiod, while 702 (58.4%) did not. No difference between groups was found when comparing the pre- to postswitch change in all-cause hospitalization (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.66-3.23, = 0.3436) or diabetes-related hospitalization (IRR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.62-3.10, = 0.4203). Additionally, no difference was found between groups regarding the change in HbA1c 12-month postswitch compared with baseline (difference between groups = -0.10%, 95% CI = -0.39%-0.19%, = 0.4962). Total PMPM spending was 43% higher in the other switch group compared with the linagliptin switch group (IRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.25-1.63, < 0.0001). This trend was driven by 92% higher medical PMPM spending in the other switch group compared with the linagliptin switch group (IRR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.58-2.33, < 0.0001) but was offset by 12% lower pharmacy PMPM spending in the other switch group (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82-0.95, = 0.0009). An NMFS from sitagliptin to linagliptin resulted in overall health plan savings with no significant changes in health outcomes. Funding for this study was provided by Geisinger Health System, which had no role in the study outside of a final review of the submitted manuscript. Johns and Gionfriddo are Geisinger employees. The authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

摘要

非医疗处方切换(NMFS)在管理式医疗保健计划中经常发生,涉及出于临床考虑以外的原因更换首选药物。NMFS 的成本影响很少公布,临床结果也很少评估。为了评估涉及西他列汀和利拉利汀的 NMFS 的实际临床和成本影响。2018 年 2 月 1 日,对 Geisinger Health Plan(GHP)商业、医疗改革和医疗补助处方进行了 NMFS,涉及将首选药物从西他列汀改为利拉利汀。使用 GHP 的索赔数据和 Geisinger 医疗系统电子健康记录中的临床信息来评估这种变化的成本和临床影响。在整个研究期间,年龄在 18 岁或以上且一直连续参加 GHP 商业、医疗改革或医疗补助计划的患者,并且在预切换阶段至少有一次西他列汀的配药,均符合研究条件。我们研究了切换前后 12 个月内那些对新首选治疗方案保持依从性的患者(“利拉利汀切换”组)和那些没有的患者(“其他切换”组)的各种临床和经济结果从预到后的差异。临床结果包括全因住院、糖尿病相关住院和糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c),而经济措施包括每会员每月(PMPM)支出的变化。负二项回归模型用于估计利用计数。使用对数链接和伽马分布的广义线性模型来分析成本数据。共有 1203 名患者符合纳入标准。其中,501 名(41.6%)患者切换并在 12 个月的后期间至少保持 80%的利拉利汀依从性,而 702 名(58.4%)患者则没有。在比较全因住院的预到后变化时,两组之间没有发现差异(发病率比(IRR)= 1.46,95%CI = 0.66-3.23,= 0.3436)或糖尿病相关住院(IRR = 1.39,95%CI = 0.62-3.10,= 0.4203)。此外,两组之间在 12 个月的 HbA1c 后与基线相比没有发现变化(组间差异= -0.10%,95%CI = -0.39%-0.19%,= 0.4962)。与利拉利汀切换组相比,其他切换组的总 PMPM 支出高出 43%(IRR = 1.43,95%CI = 1.25-1.63,<0.0001)。这种趋势主要是由于其他切换组的医疗 PMPM 支出高出 92%,而利拉利汀切换组的医疗 PMPM 支出高出 12%(IRR = 0.88,95%CI = 0.82-0.95,= 0.0009)。从西他列汀到利拉利汀的 NMFS 导致了总体健康计划的节省,而健康结果没有显著变化。本研究的资金由 Geisinger 医疗系统提供,该系统除了对提交的手稿进行最终审查外,在研究中没有任何作用。约翰斯和吉翁弗里多是 Geisinger 的员工。作者报告没有财务利益冲突。

相似文献

1
Cost and clinical impact of a nonmedical DPP-4 inhibitor switch in patients with diabetes.糖尿病患者切换使用非医学 DPP-4 抑制剂的成本和临床影响。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Jul;27(7):846-854. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.7.846.
2
Adherence, Persistence, and Health Care Costs for Patients Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors.接受二肽基肽酶-4 抑制剂治疗的患者的依从性、持久性和医疗保健费用。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Mar;23(3):299-306. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.3.299.
3
Cost and Utilization Outcomes After Exclusion of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Other Diabetes Drug Category Changes in a Self-Funded, State Employee Managed Care Plan.在自营型、州立员工管理式医疗保健计划中排除二肽基肽酶-4 抑制剂和其他糖尿病药物类别变更后的成本和利用结果。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jun;25(6):646-651. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.6.646.
4
Health care utilization and costs associated with switching from DPP-4i to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i: an observational cohort study.从 DPP-4i 切换到 GLP-1RA 或 SGLT2i 相关的医疗保健利用和成本:一项观察性队列研究。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Apr;27(4):435-443. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.4.435.
5
Demographic and Clinical Profiles of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Initiating Canagliflozin Versus DPP-4 Inhibitors in a Large U.S. Managed Care Population.在一个大型美国管理式医疗人群中,起始用卡格列净与 DPP-4 抑制剂治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者的人口统计学和临床特征。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2015 Dec;21(12):1204-12. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.12.1204.
6
Retrospective database analysis of the impact of prior authorization for type 2 diabetes medications on health care costs in a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan population.对医疗保险优势处方药计划人群中2型糖尿病药物预先授权对医疗保健成本的影响进行回顾性数据库分析。
J Manag Care Pharm. 2013 Jun;19(5):374-84. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2013.19.5.374.
7
Healthcare Costs Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating DPP-4 Inhibitors.开始使用二肽基肽酶-4抑制剂的2型糖尿病成人患者的医疗费用
Adv Ther. 2016 Jan;33(1):68-81. doi: 10.1007/s12325-015-0277-2. Epub 2016 Jan 2.
8
Five-year examination of utilization and drug cost outcomes associated with benefit design changes including reference pricing for proton pump inhibitors in a state employee health plan.对一项州雇员健康计划中与福利设计变更(包括质子泵抑制剂参考定价)相关的使用情况和药品成本结果进行的五年审查。
J Manag Care Pharm. 2011 Apr;17(3):200-12. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2011.17.3.200.
9
Actionable Real-World Evidence to Improve Health Outcomes and Reduce Medical Spending Among Risk-Stratified Patients with Diabetes.针对糖尿病风险分层患者,提供切实可行的真实世界证据,以改善健康结局并降低医疗支出。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Dec;25(12):1442-1452. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.12.1442.
10
Comparison of costs among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide or sitagliptin therapy.比较接受艾塞那肽或西他列汀治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者的成本。
Adv Ther. 2009 Feb;26(2):217-29. doi: 10.1007/s12325-009-0002-0. Epub 2009 Feb 14.

本文引用的文献

1
Addendum. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: . Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S98-S110.附录9. 血糖治疗的药理学方法:《糖尿病护理》2020年;43(增刊1):S98 - S110。
Diabetes Care. 2020 Aug;43(8):1979. doi: 10.2337/dc20-ad08a. Epub 2020 Jun 5.
2
Communication of Medication Nonmedical Switching Policies and Procedures by Insurance Companies: Results of an E-Survey.保险公司的药物非医疗转换政策和程序的沟通:电子调查结果。
Clin Ther. 2020 Jun;42(6):1077-1086. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 May 14.
3
CONSENSUS STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TYPE 2 DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM - .美国临床内分泌医师协会和美国内分泌学会关于2型糖尿病综合管理算法的共识声明 -
Endocr Pract. 2020 Jan;26(1):107-139. doi: 10.4158/CS-2019-0472.
4
Physicians' perspectives regarding non-medical switching of prescription medications: Results of an internet e-survey.医生对处方药物非医疗用途转换的看法:互联网电子调查结果。
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0225867. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225867. eCollection 2020.
5
9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: .9. 血糖治疗的药物学方法: 。
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S98-S110. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S009.
6
The impact of non-medical switching among ambulatory patients: an updated systematic literature review.门诊患者非医疗换药的影响:一项更新的系统文献综述
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019 Oct 19;7(1):1678563. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2019.1678563. eCollection 2019.
7
The non-medical switching of prescription medications.非医疗用途处方药的转换。
Postgrad Med. 2019 Jun;131(5):335-341. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2019.1618195. Epub 2019 May 29.
8
The Effects of a Sitagliptin Formulary Restriction Program on Diabetes Medication Use.西他列汀处方限制计划对糖尿病药物使用的影响。
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2017 Dec;10(9):456-462.
9
Linagliptin versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.利拉利汀与西他列汀治疗 2 型糖尿病患者的疗效比较:一项随机临床试验的网络荟萃分析。
Daru. 2017 Oct 25;25(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40199-017-0189-6.
10
Adherence, Persistence, and Health Care Costs for Patients Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors.接受二肽基肽酶-4 抑制剂治疗的患者的依从性、持久性和医疗保健费用。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Mar;23(3):299-306. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.3.299.