Lorraine T Dean1,2, Hsien-Yen Chang2, William C Goedel3, Philip A Chan4,5,6, Jalpa A Doshi7,8, Amy S Nunn9. 1. Department of Epidemiology. 2. Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health. 4. Department of Medicine, Brown University. 5. Rhode Island Department of Health. 6. Rhode Island Public Health Institute, Providence, Rhode Island. 7. Perelman School of Medicine. 8. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the United States (USA), HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use is suboptimal. Population-level metrics on PrEP use are limited and focus on prescriptions issued rather than how much prescriptions are picked up. We introduce PrEP reversals, defined as when patients fail to pick up PrEP prescriptions at the pharmacy point-of-sale, as a proxy for PrEP initiation and persistence. DESIGN: We analysed PrEP pharmacy claims and HIV diagnoses from a Symphony Health Solutions dataset across all US states from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2019. METHODS: We calculated the percentage of individuals who were newly prescribed PrEP and who reversed (i.e. patient did not pick up an insurance-approved prescription and pharmacy withdrew the claim), delayed (reversed and then picked up within 90 days), very delayed (reversed and then picked up between 90 and 365 days) or abandoned (not picked up within 365 days), and subsequent HIV diagnosis within 365 days. RESULTS: Of 59 219 individuals newly prescribed PrEP, 19% reversed their index prescription. Among those, 21% delayed initiation and 8% had very delayed initiation. Seventy-one percent of patients who reversed their initial prescription abandoned it, 6% of whom were diagnosed with HIV---three times higher than those who persisted on PrEP. CONCLUSION: Nearly one in five patients newlyprescribed PrEP reversed initial prescriptions, leading to delayed medication access, being lost to PrEP care, and dramatically higher HIV risk. Reversals could be used for real-time nationwide PrEP population-based initiation and persistence tracking, and for identifying patients that might otherwise be lost to care.
OBJECTIVE: In the United States (USA), HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use is suboptimal. Population-level metrics on PrEP use are limited and focus on prescriptions issued rather than how much prescriptions are picked up. We introduce PrEP reversals, defined as when patients fail to pick up PrEP prescriptions at the pharmacy point-of-sale, as a proxy for PrEP initiation and persistence. DESIGN: We analysed PrEP pharmacy claims and HIV diagnoses from a Symphony Health Solutions dataset across all US states from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2019. METHODS: We calculated the percentage of individuals who were newly prescribed PrEP and who reversed (i.e. patient did not pick up an insurance-approved prescription and pharmacy withdrew the claim), delayed (reversed and then picked up within 90 days), very delayed (reversed and then picked up between 90 and 365 days) or abandoned (not picked up within 365 days), and subsequent HIV diagnosis within 365 days. RESULTS: Of 59 219 individuals newly prescribed PrEP, 19% reversed their index prescription. Among those, 21% delayed initiation and 8% had very delayed initiation. Seventy-one percent of patients who reversed their initial prescription abandoned it, 6% of whom were diagnosed with HIV---three times higher than those who persisted on PrEP. CONCLUSION: Nearly one in five patients newlyprescribed PrEP reversed initial prescriptions, leading to delayed medication access, being lost to PrEP care, and dramatically higher HIV risk. Reversals could be used for real-time nationwide PrEP population-based initiation and persistence tracking, and for identifying patients that might otherwise be lost to care.
Authors: Farah Mouhanna; Amanda D Castel; Patrick S Sullivan; Irene Kuo; Heather J Hoffman; Aaron J Siegler; Jeb S Jones; Robertino Mera Giler; Pema McGuinness; Michael R Kramer Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Philip A Chan; William C Goedel; Amy S Nunn; Genoviva Sowemimo-Coker; Omar Galárraga; Mattia Prosperi; Rupa Patel; Leandro Mena; Madeline C Montgomery; Brandon D L Marshall Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Aaron J Siegler; Farah Mouhanna; Robertino Mera Giler; Kevin Weiss; Elizabeth Pembleton; Jodie Guest; Jeb Jones; Amanda Castel; Howa Yeung; Michael Kramer; Scott McCallister; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Philip A Chan; Leandro Mena; Rupa Patel; Catherine E Oldenburg; Laura Beauchamps; Amaya G Perez-Brumer; Sharon Parker; Kenneth H Mayer; Matthew J Mimiaga; Amy Nunn Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Rupa R Patel; Leandro Mena; Amy Nunn; Timothy McBride; Laura C Harrison; Catherine E Oldenburg; Jingxia Liu; Kenneth H Mayer; Philip A Chan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew A Spinelli; Hyman M Scott; Eric Vittinghoff; Albert Y Liu; Rafael Gonzalez; Alicia Morehead-Gee; Monica Gandhi; Susan P Buchbinder Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: William C Goedel; Cassandra Sutten Coats; Philip A Chan; Courtney E Sims-Gomillia; James B Brock; Lori M Ward; Leandro A Mena; Amy S Nunn Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Amy Killelea; Jeremiah Johnson; Derek T Dangerfield; Chris Beyrer; Matthew McGough; John McIntyre; Rebekah E Gee; Jeromie Ballreich; Rena Conti; Tim Horn; Jim Pickett; Joshua M Sharfstein Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2022 Impact factor: 1.604