BackgroundDespite the availability of new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens, changes in DAA reimbursement criteria, and a public health focus on hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, it remains unclear if public and private insurers have increased access to these therapies over time. We evaluated changes in the incidence of absolute denial of DAA therapy over time and by insurance type.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study among patients who had a DAA prescription submitted from January 2016 to April 2017 to Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., which provides HCV pharmacy services across the United States. The main outcome was absolute denial of DAA prescription, defined as lack of fill approval by the insurer. We calculated the incidence of absolute denial, overall and by insurance type (Medicaid, Medicare, commercial), for the 16-month study period and each quarter.ResultsAmong 9025 patients from 45 states prescribed a DAA regimen (4702 covered by Medicaid, 1821 Medicare, 2502 commercial insurance), 3200 (35.5%; 95% confidence interval, 34.5%–36.5%) were absolutely denied treatment. Absolute denial was more common among patients covered by commercial insurance (52.4%) than Medicaid (34.5%, P < .001) or Medicare (14.7%, P < .001). The incidence of absolute denial increased across each quarter of the study period, overall (27.7% in first quarter to 43.8% in last quarter; test for trend, P < .001) and for each insurance type (test for trend, P < .001 for each type).ConclusionsDespite the availability of new DAA regimens and changes in restrictions of these therapies, absolute denials of DAA regimens by insurers have remained high and increased over time, regardless of insurance type.

Background Stigma around hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an important and understudied barrier to HCV prevention, treatment, and elimination. To date, no validated instrument exists to measure patients' experiences of HCV stigma. This study aimed to revise the Berger (2001) HIV stigma scale and evaluate its psychometric properties among patients with HCV infection.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the risk of serious adverse events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating saxagliptin compared with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in classes other than dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.Research design and methodsCohort studies using 2009–2014 data from two UK medical record data sources (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, The Health Improvement Network) and two USA claims-based data sources (HealthCore Integrated Research Database, Medicare). All eligible adult patients newly prescribed saxagliptin (n=110 740) and random samples of up to 10 matched initiators of non-DPP-4 inhibitor OADs within each data source were selected (n=913 384). Outcomes were hospitalized major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver failure (ALF), infections, and severe hypersensitivity events, evaluated using diagnostic coding algorithms and medical records. Cox regression was used to determine HRs with 95% CIs for each outcome. Meta-analyses across data sources were performed for each outcome as feasible.ResultsThere were no increased incidence rates or risk of MACE, AKI, ALF, infection, or severe hypersensitivity reactions among saxagliptin initiators compared with other OAD initiators within any data source. Meta-analyses demonstrated a reduced risk of hospitalization/death from MACE (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97) and no increased risk of hospitalization for infection (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02) or AKI (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11) associated with saxagliptin initiation. ALF and hypersensitivity events were too rare to permit meta-analysis.ConclusionsSaxagliptin initiation was not associated with increased risk of MACE, infection, AKI, ALF, or severe hypersensitivity reactions in clinical practice settings.Trial registration numberNCT01086280, NCT01086293, NCT01086319, NCT01086306, and NCT01377935; Results.

BackgroundThe patterns and determinants of saxagliptin use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are unknown in real-world settings. We compared the characteristics of T2DM patients who were new initiators of saxagliptin to those who were new initiators of non-dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) and identified factors associated with saxagliptin use.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), US Medicare, and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRDSM) across the first 36 months of saxagliptin availability (29 months for US Medicare). Patients were included if they were: 1) ≥18 years old, 2) newly prescribed saxagliptin or a non-DPP-4 inhibitor OAD, and 3) enrolled in their respective database for 180 days. For each saxagliptin initiator, we randomly selected up to ten non-DPP-4 inhibitor OAD initiators matched on age, sex, and geographic region. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify determinants of saxagliptin use.ResultsWe identified 64,079 saxagliptin initiators (CPRD: 1,962; THIN: 2,084; US Medicare: 51,976; HIRDSM: 8,057) and 610,660 non-DPP-4 inhibitor OAD initiators (CPRD: 19,484; THIN: 19,936; US Medicare: 493,432; HIRDSM: 77,808). Across all four data sources, prior OAD use, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were associated with saxagliptin use. Saxagliptin initiation was also associated with hemoglobin A1c results >8% within the UK data sources, and a greater number of hemoglobin A1c measurements in the US data sources.ConclusionsIn these UK and US data sources, initiation of saxagliptin was associated with prior poor glycemic control, prior OAD use, and diagnoses of hypertension and hyperlipidemia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01086280, NCT01086293, NCT01086319, NCT01086306, and NCT01377935

Within each database, over 60% of patients initiating saxagliptin were included within both CPRD and THIN. Combined demographic and prescription data can be used to identify patients included in both CPRD and THIN.