Frieda Wiley

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Selecting pharmacologic treatment for migraines remains a challenge despite numerous studies investigating efficacy, cost-benefit analyses, and outcomes.

“There’s very little consistency in study design, making it difficult to make real-world comparisons,” said Carly Rodriguez, PharmD, FAMP, pharmacy director at Moda Health. Dr. Rodriguez presented data on the efficacy and pharmacoeconomic factors of migraine therapy at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The paucity of translatable evidence makes comparing and evaluating newer migraine therapies – such as botulinum toxins and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors – particularly difficult.

These two injectable drug classes are not first-line treatments for migraine; they are currently reserved for patients who are refractory to at least one prophylactic treatment, but they offer important alternatives and additions to therapy.

“OnabotulinumtoxinA makes a good case because it costs less than a single ER visit, but there’s not enough supporting data,” Dr. Rodriguez said. According to a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic impact associated with onabotulinumtoxinA, administering the drug saved $157/headache day averted for 20 baseline headaches per month and $223/headache day avoided for 15 baseline headaches per month.

OnabotulinumtoxinA administration showed a moderate yet significant health benefit in preventing chronic migraines by reducing the number of headache days patients experienced by more than 50%. No benefit for episodic migraines was observed.

Several single- and multicenter studies found that onabotulinumtoxinA produced positive outcomes such as a decreased number of visits to urgent care centers, a lower average number of migraines patients experienced, and improved quality of life.

An ICER report investigating CGRP inhibitors found that the cost of anti-CGRP therapy may not produce viable clinical benefits.

Both botulinum toxins and CGRP inhibitors require prior authorization, and their injectable dosage forms restrict the settings in which they are administered and dispensed. Because botulinum toxins must be administered by a health care professional, the vast majority of these drugs are restricted to medical settings, with brand-to-generic substitution often varying among health plans. For this reason, botulinum toxins rarely appear on formularies. Several health plans consider botulinum toxins interchangeable and may give prescribers options to select the botulinum toxin product of their choice.

According to Dr. Rodriguez, there is some variability as to whether CGRP therapies are available in community pharmacy settings or are restricted to specialty pharmacies. Additionally, some plans consider all CGRP inhibitors to be interchangeable, while others take a more conservative approach.

Overall, generic drugs continue to dominate migraine drug therapy, with triptans leading the way. Generics that are heavily prescribed include beta-blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

More than 37 million people living in the United States suffer from migraines – approximately 8% of the overall population. Women are four times as likely to have migraines than men.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Selecting pharmacologic treatment for migraines remains a challenge despite numerous studies investigating efficacy, cost-benefit analyses, and outcomes.

“There’s very little consistency in study design, making it difficult to make real-world comparisons,” said Carly Rodriguez, PharmD, FAMP, pharmacy director at Moda Health. Dr. Rodriguez presented data on the efficacy and pharmacoeconomic factors of migraine therapy at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The paucity of translatable evidence makes comparing and evaluating newer migraine therapies – such as botulinum toxins and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors – particularly difficult.

These two injectable drug classes are not first-line treatments for migraine; they are currently reserved for patients who are refractory to at least one prophylactic treatment, but they offer important alternatives and additions to therapy.

“OnabotulinumtoxinA makes a good case because it costs less than a single ER visit, but there’s not enough supporting data,” Dr. Rodriguez said. According to a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic impact associated with onabotulinumtoxinA, administering the drug saved $157/headache day averted for 20 baseline headaches per month and $223/headache day avoided for 15 baseline headaches per month.

OnabotulinumtoxinA administration showed a moderate yet significant health benefit in preventing chronic migraines by reducing the number of headache days patients experienced by more than 50%. No benefit for episodic migraines was observed.

Several single- and multicenter studies found that onabotulinumtoxinA produced positive outcomes such as a decreased number of visits to urgent care centers, a lower average number of migraines patients experienced, and improved quality of life.

An ICER report investigating CGRP inhibitors found that the cost of anti-CGRP therapy may not produce viable clinical benefits.

Both botulinum toxins and CGRP inhibitors require prior authorization, and their injectable dosage forms restrict the settings in which they are administered and dispensed. Because botulinum toxins must be administered by a health care professional, the vast majority of these drugs are restricted to medical settings, with brand-to-generic substitution often varying among health plans. For this reason, botulinum toxins rarely appear on formularies. Several health plans consider botulinum toxins interchangeable and may give prescribers options to select the botulinum toxin product of their choice.

According to Dr. Rodriguez, there is some variability as to whether CGRP therapies are available in community pharmacy settings or are restricted to specialty pharmacies. Additionally, some plans consider all CGRP inhibitors to be interchangeable, while others take a more conservative approach.

Overall, generic drugs continue to dominate migraine drug therapy, with triptans leading the way. Generics that are heavily prescribed include beta-blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

More than 37 million people living in the United States suffer from migraines – approximately 8% of the overall population. Women are four times as likely to have migraines than men.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Selecting pharmacologic treatment for migraines remains a challenge despite numerous studies investigating efficacy, cost-benefit analyses, and outcomes.

“There’s very little consistency in study design, making it difficult to make real-world comparisons,” said Carly Rodriguez, PharmD, FAMP, pharmacy director at Moda Health. Dr. Rodriguez presented data on the efficacy and pharmacoeconomic factors of migraine therapy at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The paucity of translatable evidence makes comparing and evaluating newer migraine therapies – such as botulinum toxins and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors – particularly difficult.

These two injectable drug classes are not first-line treatments for migraine; they are currently reserved for patients who are refractory to at least one prophylactic treatment, but they offer important alternatives and additions to therapy.

“OnabotulinumtoxinA makes a good case because it costs less than a single ER visit, but there’s not enough supporting data,” Dr. Rodriguez said. According to a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic impact associated with onabotulinumtoxinA, administering the drug saved $157/headache day averted for 20 baseline headaches per month and $223/headache day avoided for 15 baseline headaches per month.

OnabotulinumtoxinA administration showed a moderate yet significant health benefit in preventing chronic migraines by reducing the number of headache days patients experienced by more than 50%. No benefit for episodic migraines was observed.

Several single- and multicenter studies found that onabotulinumtoxinA produced positive outcomes such as a decreased number of visits to urgent care centers, a lower average number of migraines patients experienced, and improved quality of life.

An ICER report investigating CGRP inhibitors found that the cost of anti-CGRP therapy may not produce viable clinical benefits.

Both botulinum toxins and CGRP inhibitors require prior authorization, and their injectable dosage forms restrict the settings in which they are administered and dispensed. Because botulinum toxins must be administered by a health care professional, the vast majority of these drugs are restricted to medical settings, with brand-to-generic substitution often varying among health plans. For this reason, botulinum toxins rarely appear on formularies. Several health plans consider botulinum toxins interchangeable and may give prescribers options to select the botulinum toxin product of their choice.

According to Dr. Rodriguez, there is some variability as to whether CGRP therapies are available in community pharmacy settings or are restricted to specialty pharmacies. Additionally, some plans consider all CGRP inhibitors to be interchangeable, while others take a more conservative approach.

Overall, generic drugs continue to dominate migraine drug therapy, with triptans leading the way. Generics that are heavily prescribed include beta-blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

More than 37 million people living in the United States suffer from migraines – approximately 8% of the overall population. Women are four times as likely to have migraines than men.

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.