ObjectiveTo compare medication adherence, pulmonary exacerbations, healthcare utilization, and costs for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) who utilized a pharmacy‐based therapy management program to a matched control group. We hypothesized that patient management services would be associated with better medication adherence, and thus require fewer visits to the emergency room or hospitalizations.MethodsThis retrospective, observational cohort study used claims data from the MORE2 claims Registry®. The sample consisted of CF patients, aged 6+, who had ≥1 pharmacy claim for inhaled tobramycin, inhaled aztreonam, ivacaftor, or dornase alfa from 6/2/2014‐5/31/2015. Adherence was measured as proportion of days covered (PDC). Propensity score matching and multivariable regression techniques were used to compare outcomes in program participants to matched controls.ResultsOf the 236 intervention and 724 control patients meeting selection criteria, 202 were propensity‐matched from each cohort. Relative to the control cohort, program patients had 23% higher mean PDC for tobramycin (IRR = 1.23, P = 0.01) and were twice as likely to be adherent to tobramycin (PDC ≥ 80%) than matched controls (OR = 2.14, P = 0.04). Program patients had fewer ER visits (IRR = 0.52, P < 0.01) and slightly lower ER costs (IRR = 0.66, P = 0.06) than the control patients.ConclusionA pharmacy‐based therapy management program for CF patients was associated with higher adherence to inhaled tobramycin and lower ER rates. Pharmacies that provide therapy management can support effective CF care management.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive lung disease which results in thickening and scarring of the interstitial tissue. As the only 2 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications on the market, it is valuable to compare the impact of nintedanib and pirfenidone on clinical outcomes. Records of patients who started nintedanib or pirfenidone between calendar years 2015 and 2016 at a national specialty pharmacy were retrospectively reviewed. Data collection was derived from patient management applications and statistical data analysis was completed in SAS (SAS Institute Inc®). The nintedanib population contained 2605 patients and of the population completing clinical assessment surveys (n = 1343), 46% of respondents (n = 612) reported no adverse events, with the remaining 54% reporting at least 1 adverse event. Average proportion of days covered (PDC) was 84.2% (SD = 17.0). Average final monthly copay for this group was $235. The pirfenidone population had 1322 patients, and of the surveyed population (n = 764), 58% of respondents (n = 445) reported no adverse events, with the remaining 42% reporting at least 1 adverse event. Average PDC was 83.4% (SD = 17.3). Average final monthly copay for this group was $339. Outcomes in the studied IPF population were similar for nintedanib and pirfenidone.

PURPOSE:A national specialty pharmacy implemented a split-fill option within an oral oncology patient management program to reduce pharmacy costs and medication wastage resulting from early discontinuations. Payers covered dispensed medications at half-quantity intervals for each dispense up to 3 months. Proactive outreach to patients before they had used up the initial dispensed medication quantity helped assess the patient’s tolerance to the new medication and adverse effects. This study compared costs for patients with a split-fill option to similar costs for patients without this option taking into account patient discontinuation rates, patient-reported adverse effects rates, estimated pharmacy costs, and potential wastage.METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included patients who were new to therapy on a split-fill medication between September 2015 and August 2017. A 1:1 greedy match algorithm was conducted using propensity variables to match patients from each cohort. Per-month discontinuation rates were determined for both split-fill and non–split-fill groups. The non–split-fill potential wastage was calculated as monthly costs for discontinuations in the following month and weighted by split-fill discontinuation rates.RESULTS:Of the 2,363 program patients who met selection criteria for the 11 medications, 671 patients from each group were matched. Payers with a split-fill program had significant medication savings per covered month ($2,147.60 at 1 month) and at a cumulative 6 months. Modeled wastage indicated that payers without a split-fill program could expect to save $2,646.74 monthly by using this option. Both cohorts had similar rates of adverse effects and time until first reported adverse effect.CONCLUSION:In the first 6 months, the split-fill patient managed program had lower discontinuation rates, significantly reduced pharmacy costs, and reduced potential wastage.