Characteristics of Patients Receiving Novel Muscular Dystrophy Drugs in Trials vs Routine Care.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration approved eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in 2016 based on a controversial pivotal study that demonstrated a limited effect on the surrogate measure of dystrophin production. Other DMD treatments in the same class followed. Objective: To assess how patients receiving novel DMD treatments in postapproval clinical settings compare with patients in the clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected data on patients who initiated 1 of 4 novel DMD treatments (eteplirsen, golodirsen, viltolarsen, and casimersen) using national claims databases of commercially insured (Merative MarketScan and Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart Database [CDM]) and Medicaid patients between September 19, 2016, and March 31, 2022. Patients were followed for 1 year after the date of first use of any novel DMD treatment. In addition, patients in pivotal DMD drug trials were identified for comparison. Exposures: Age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, and DMD stage of patients receiving novel DMD treatment. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was health care costs and drug discontinuation as measured using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 223 routine care patients initiating novel DMD drugs (58 in MarketScan, 35 in CDM, and 130 in Medicaid) were identified. Among the 106 patients in the pivotal trials, the mean (SD) age was 8.5 (2.0) years (range, 4.0-13.0 years), which was younger than the mean age of patients in routine care (MarketScan: 13.7 [7.0] years [range, 1.8-33.3 years; P < .001]; CDM: 11.9 [5.7] years [range, 0.6-23.6 years; P < .001]; Medicaid: 13.4 [6.5] years [range, 1.8-46.1 years; P < .001]). The proportion of female patients identified in postapproval clinical settings was 2.9% (n = 1) in CDM (vs 34 male patients [97.1%]) and 1.5% (n = 2) in Medicaid (vs 128 male patients [98.5%]), which was not different from the pivotal trials. While nearly all patients in the pivotal trials had DMD disease stage 1 or 2 when initiating the DMD treatments (103 [97.2%]), in the postapproval clinical setting, slightly more than one-third of patients were in disease stage 3 or 4 (MarketScan, 17 [36.2%; P < .001]; CDM, 13 [41.9%; P < .001]; Medicaid, 54 [47.0%; P < .001]). The payer's cost for novel DMD treatments varied across the databases, with a mean (SD) of $634 764 ($607 101) in MarketScan, $482 749 ($582 350) in CDM, and $384 023 ($1 165 730) in Medicaid. Approximately one-third of routine care patients discontinued the treatments after approximately 7 months (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.4], 6.9 [3.9], and 7.2 [4.3] months in MarketScan, CDM, and Medicaid, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings raise questions about the translation of DMD drug trial findings to routine care settings, with patients in routine care discontinuing the treatment within 1 year and payers incurring substantial expenses for these medications. More data are needed on whether these high costs are accompanied by corresponding clinical benefits.