Publications

2023

Narasimmaraj, Prihatha R, Andrew Oseran, Archana Tale, Jiaman Xu, Utibe R Essien, Dhruv S Kazi, Robert W Yeh, and Rishi K Wadhera. (2023) 2023. “Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cardiovascular Risk Factors Under the Inflation Reduction Act.”. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 81 (15): 1491-1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.02.002.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket prescription drug costs contribute to financial toxicity, medication nonadherence, and adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Policymakers recently passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will cap Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000/year and expand full low-income subsidies (LIS). It is unclear how these provisions will affect Medicare beneficiaries with CV risk factors and/or conditions.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to characterize the population of Medicare beneficiaries with CV risk factors/conditions experiencing out-of-pocket prescription drug costs >$2,000/year and estimate their potential savings under the Inflation Reduction Act's spending cap; identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with out-of-pocket costs >$2,000/year; and characterize beneficiaries newly eligible for LIS under the Inflation Reduction Act.

METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with ≥1 CV risk factor/condition from 2016 to 2019.

RESULTS: An annual estimated 34,056,335 ± 855,653 Medicare beneficiaries (mean ± SE) had ≥1 CV risk factor/condition, of whom 1,020,484 ± 77,055 experienced out-of-pocket drug costs >$2,000/year. The likelihood of experiencing out-of-pocket drug costs >$2,000/year was lower among adults ≥75 years vs 65 to 74 years (adjusted OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.93) and for low-income vs higher-income adults. Among beneficiaries currently spending >$2,000/year, estimated median out-of-pocket drug savings would be $855/year and total annual savings $1,723,031,307 ± $91,150,609 under the Inflation Reduction Act. An estimated 1,289,861 beneficiaries would also become newly eligible for LIS.

CONCLUSIONS: More than 1 million older adults with CV risk factors and/or conditions spend >$2,000/year out-of-pocket on prescription drugs and will likely benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act's cap, with estimated total out-of-pocket savings of $1.7 billion/year, while another 1.3 million will also become newly eligible for LIS.

Cohen, Laura P, Nicolas Isaza, Inmaculada Hernandez, Gregory D Lewis, Jennifer E Ho, Gregg C Fonarow, Dhruv S Kazi, and Brandon K Bellows. (2023) 2023. “Cost-Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.”. JAMA Cardiology 8 (5): 419-28. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2023.0077.

IMPORTANCE: Adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2-I) to standard-of-care treatment in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) reduces the risk of a composite outcome of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular mortality, but the cost-effectiveness in US patients with HFpEF is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of standard therapy plus an SGLT2-I compared with standard therapy in individuals with HFpEF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this economic evaluation conducted from September 8, 2021, to December 12, 2022, a state-transition Markov model simulated monthly health outcomes and direct medical costs. Input parameters including hospitalization rates, mortality rates, costs, and utilities were extracted from HFpEF trials, published literature, and publicly available data sets. The base-case annual cost of SGLT2-I was $4506. A simulated cohort with similar characteristics as participants of the Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With a Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) and Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction (DELIVER) trials was used.

EXPOSURES: Standard of care plus SGLT2-I vs standard of care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The model simulated hospitalizations, urgent care visits, and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 3% per year. Main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs (2022 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGLT2-I therapy from a US health care sector perspective. The ICER of SGLT2-I therapy was evaluated according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association value framework (high value: <$50 000; intermediate value: $50 000 to <$150 000; and low value: ≥$150 000).

RESULTS: The simulated cohort had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (9.5) years and 6828 of 12 251 participants (55.7%) were male. Standard of care plus SGLT2-I increased quality-adjusted survival by 0.19 QALYs at an increased cost of $26 300 compared with standard of care. The resulting ICER was $141 200 per QALY gained, with 59.1% of 1000 probabilistic iterations indicating intermediate value and 40.9% indicating low value. The ICER was most sensitive to SGLT2-I costs and effect of SGLT2-I therapy on cardiovascular death (eg, increasing to $373 400 per QALY gained if SGLT2-I therapy was assumed to have no effect on mortality).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this economic evaluation suggest that at 2022 drug prices, adding an SGLT2-I to standard of care was of intermediate or low economic value compared with standard of care in US adults with HFpEF. Efforts to expand access to SGLT2-I for individuals with HFpEF should be coupled with efforts to lower the cost of SGLT2-I therapy.

Suen, Leslie W, Eric Vittinghoff, Alan H B Wu, Akshay Ravi, Phillip O Coffin, Priscilla Hsue, Kara L Lynch, Dhruv S Kazi, and Elise D Riley. (2023) 2023. “Multiple Substance Use and Blood Pressure in Women Experiencing Homelessness.”. Addictive Behaviors Reports 17: 100483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2023.100483.

BACKGROUND: Substance use increases risk of cardiovascular events, particularly among women with additional risk factors like housing instability. While multiple substance use is common among unstably housed individuals, relationships between multiple substance use and cardiovascular risk factors like blood pressure are not well characterized.

METHODS: We conducted a cohort study between 2016 and 2019 to examine associations between multiple substance use and blood pressure in women experiencing homelessness and unstable housing. Participants completed six monthly visits including vital sign assessment, interview, and blood draw to assess toxicology-confirmed substance use (e.g., cocaine, alcohol, opioids) and cardiovascular health. We used linear mixed models to evaluate the outcomes of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP; DBP).

RESULTS: Mean age was 51.6 years; 74 % were women of color. Prevalence of any substance use was 85 %; 63 % of participants used at least two substances at baseline. Adjusting for race, body mass index and cholesterol, cocaine was the only substance significantly associated with SBP (4.71 mmHg higher; 95 % CI 1.68, 7.74) and DBP (2.83 mmHg higher; 95 % CI 0.72, 4.94). Further analysis found no differences in SBP or DBP between those with concurrent use of other stimulants, depressants, or both with cocaine, compared to those who used cocaine only.

CONCLUSIONS: Cocaine was the only substance associated with higher SBP and DBP, even after accounting for simultaneous use of other substances. Along with interventions to address cocaine use, stimulant use screening during cardiovascular risk assessment and intensive blood pressure management may improve cardiovascular outcomes among women experiencing housing instability.

Kazi, Dhruv S, Colette DeJong, Randi Chen, Rishi K Wadhera, and Chien-Wen Tseng. (2023) 2023. “The Inflation Reduction Act and Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cardiovascular Disease.”. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 81 (21): 2103-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.03.414.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs can impede access to guideline-directed cardiovascular drugs. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will eliminate catastrophic coinsurance and cap annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D patients by 2025.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to estimate the IRA's impact on out-of-pocket costs for Part D beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease.

METHODS: The investigators chose 4 cardiovascular conditions that frequently require high-cost guideline-recommended drugs: severe hypercholesterolemia; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); HFrEF with atrial fibrillation (AF); and cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis. This study included 4,137 Part D plans nationwide and compared projected annual out-of-pocket drug costs for each condition in 2022 (baseline), 2023 (rollout), 2024 (5% catastrophic coinsurance eliminated), and 2025 ($2,000 cap on out-of-pocket costs).

RESULTS: In 2022, mean projected annual out-of-pocket costs were $1,629 for severe hypercholesterolemia, $2,758 for HFrEF, $3,259 for HFrEF with AF, and $14,978 for amyloidosis. In 2023, the initial IRA rollout will not significantly change out-of-pocket costs for the 4 conditions. In 2024, elimination of 5% catastrophic coinsurance will lower out-of-pocket costs for the 2 costliest conditions: HFrEF with AF ($2,855, 12% reduction) and amyloidosis ($3,468, 77% reduction). By 2025, the $2,000 cap will lower out-of-pocket costs for all 4 conditions to $1,491 for hypercholesterolemia (8% reduction), $1,954 for HFrEF (29% reduction), $2,000 for HFrEF with AF (39% reduction), and $2,000 for cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (87% reduction).

CONCLUSIONS: The IRA will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs for the selected cardiovascular conditions by 8% to 87%. Future studies should assess the IRA's impact on adherence to guideline-directed cardiovascular therapies and health outcomes.

Oseran, Andrew S, Yang Song, Jiaman Xu, Issa J Dahabreh, Rishi K Wadhera, James A de Lemos, Sandeep R Das, Tianyu Sun, Robert W Yeh, and Dhruv S Kazi. (2023) 2023. “Long Term Risk of Death and Readmission After Hospital Admission With Covid-19 Among Older Adults: Retrospective Cohort Study.”. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 382: e076222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076222.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the long term risk of death and hospital readmission after an index admission with covid-19 among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and to compare these outcomes with historical control patients admitted to hospital with influenza.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: United States.

PARTICIPANTS: 883 394 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries age ≥65 years discharged alive after an index hospital admission with covid-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022, compared with 56 409 historical controls discharged alive after a hospital admission with influenza between 1 March 2018 and 31 August 2019. Weighting methods were used to account for differences in observed characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause death within 180 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included first all cause readmission and a composite of death or readmission within 180 days.

RESULTS: The covid-19 cohort compared with the influenza cohort was younger (77.9 v 78.9 years, standardized mean difference -0.12) and had a lower proportion of women (51.7% v 57.3%, -0.11). Both groups had a similar proportion of black beneficiaries (10.3% v 8.1%, 0.07) and beneficiaries with dual Medicaid-Medicare eligibility status (20.1% v 19.2%; 0.02). The covid-19 cohort had a lower comorbidity burden, including atrial fibrillation (24.3% v 29.5%, -0.12), heart failure (43.4% v 49.9%, -0.13), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (39.2% v 52.9%, -0.27). After weighting, the covid-19 cohort had a higher risk (ie, cumulative incidence) of all cause death at 30 days (10.9% v 3.9%; standardized risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 7.2%), 90 days (15.5% v 7.1%; 8.4%, 8.2% to 8.7%), and 180 days (19.1% v 10.5%; 8.6%, 8.3% to 8.9%) compared with the influenza cohort. The covid-19 cohort also experienced a higher risk of hospital readmission at 30 days (16.0% v 11.2%; 4.9%, 4.6% to 5.1%) and 90 days (24.1% v 21.3%; 2.8%, 2.5% to 3.2%) but a similar risk at 180 days (30.6% v 30.6%;-0.1%, -0.5% to 0.3%). Over the study period, the 30 day risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 admission decreased from 17.9% to 7.2%.

CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged alive after a covid-19 hospital admission had a higher post-discharge risk of death compared with historical influenza controls; this difference, however, was concentrated in the early post-discharge period. The risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 related hospital admission substantially declined over the course of the pandemic.