Abstract
Background:
The isotretinoin risk management program iPLEDGE places requirements on patients and providers to ensure that the benefits of isotretinoin therapy outweigh the risks. Such burdens have the possibility of limiting patient access through mechanisms such as lowered physician participation.
Methods:
In this study, we utilized prescription claims data to examine changes in patient and provider participation in isotretinoin therapy with iPLEDGE implementation. We examined the change in utilization among patients not targeted by iPLEDGE (male patients) to assess the program’s impact on access. We also examined whether provider participation in isotretinoin therapy varies by specialty and isotretinoin prescribing history.
Results:
Patient access to isotretinoin decreased in the period immediately following iPLEDGE implementation, but recovered to pre-iPLEDGE levels in the succeeding months. In addition, therapy completion rates increased with iPLEDGE implementation, suggesting that patients less committed to isotretinoin therapy may be self-selecting out of therapy. Lastly, iPLEDGE resulted in decreased participation by low-volume, general practitioners, while high-volume, specialists’ participation was largely unchanged.
Conclusion:
We found that participants responded to iPLEDGE’s burdens in predictable ways. Insufficient anticipation of potential iPLEDGE rollout issues initially disrupted patient treatment and resulted in far fewer patients starting therapy. Over a longer term, isotretinoin utilization and therapy completion increased and isotretinoin prescribing shifted toward high-volume, specialist providers. We argue that these changes are predictable based on the burdens iPLEDGE imposes on patients and prescribers and may not be inconsistent with the goals of the risk management program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.