ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015
Reductions in Use of Colchicine after FDA Enforcement of Market Exclusivity in a Commercially Insured Population.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Preferential Use of Anakinra in Various Settings of FMF: A Review Applied to an Updated Treatment-Related Perspective of the Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Cilostazol for Secondary Stroke Prevention: History, Evidence, Limitations, and Possibilities.Stroke · 2021Review
- Prolonged Increases in Public-Payer Spending and Prices After Unapproved Drug Initiative Approval of Colchicine.JAMA internal medicine · 2021Article
- Inflammation May be the Future of Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: Does Colchicine have a Current Indication?American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2021Review
- Something old, something new: a paradigm for considering immune therapies for cardiovascular disease.Cardiovascular research · 2020Article
- Colchicine intoxication in familial Mediterranean fever patients using clarithromycin for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori: a series of six patients.Rheumatology international · 2018Article
- The FDA Unapproved Drugs Initiative: An Observational Study of the Consequences for Drug Prices and Shortages in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2017Observational
- The rising prevalence and incidence of gout in British Columbia, Canada: Population-based trends from 2000 to 2012.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2017Article
- Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences, and Unrealized Benefits.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA brand-name version of colchicine (Colcrys) was introduced after its manufacturer conducted a clinical trial in acute gout patients, leading to higher prices for this drug.
objectiveWe analyzed the impact of the new single-source colchicine product on prescribing and patient health spending as well as incidence rates of potentially dangerous concomitant use of clarithromycin and cyclosporine after formal FDA approval. DESIGN/
participantsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of UnitedHealth-affiliated enrollees newly diagnosed with gout or FMF. MAIN MEASURES: Among gout and FMF patients separately, we assessed linear trends in colchicine prescriptions, prescription drug costs, and total health care costs from 2009 to September 2010 (market exclusivity announced) compared to January 2011 (market exclusivity enforced) through 2012. Next, we estimated trends in co-prescription within 15 days of clarithromycin, azithromycin (indicated on the Colcrys label for use in place of clarithromycin), and cyclosporine. KEY
resultsAmong gout patients, before Colcrys' market exclusivity, the odds of receiving colchicine within 30 days of gout diagnosis increased 1.4 %/month (OR: 1.014, 95 % CI: 1.011-1.018). Following FDA action, the odds decreased by 0.5 %/month (OR: 0.995, 95 % CI: 0.992-0.999) (p < 0.001). Similarly, among FMF patients, odds of initiating colchicine changed from an increase of 2.8 %/month to a decrease by 7.6 %/month (p = 0.01). Patients receiving colchicine experienced increases in average monthly prescription drug costs ($418 vs. $651, p < 0.001) and health care costs ($3,406 vs. $3,534, p < 0.001). Incidence rates of colchicine/clarithromycin co-prescription before and after FDA action did not change, while co-prescription of colchicine/cyclosporine increased after introduction of Colcrys [-0.75 monthly change in patients (95 % CI: -1.07, -0.43) vs. 0.13 (95 % CI: -0.16, 0.42), p < 0.001].
conclusionsThe FDA's actions were associated with a reduction in colchicine initiation and an increase in patient spending. By contrast, we did not observe any association with improvements in avoidance of potentially dangerous co-prescriptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.