Cargando…
Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study
BACKGROUND: This project is an effort to understand how orders for IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) are documented and prescribed by physicians, and subsequently, how they are reviewed by insurance companies for the treatment of immune neuropathies. METHODS: A panel of neuromuscular specialists reviewed cas...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276327/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000520 |
_version_ | 1783377996188483584 |
---|---|
author | Levine, Todd D. Katz, Jonathan S. Barohn, Richard Vaughan, Leslie J. Dimachkie, Mazen M. Saperstein, David S. Mozaffar, Tahseen Wolfe, Gil I. Mayo, Matthew S. Badger, Gary J. Katzin, Lara Ritt, Elissa Greer, Michelle DiStefano, Joseph Schmidt, Patrick M. |
author_facet | Levine, Todd D. Katz, Jonathan S. Barohn, Richard Vaughan, Leslie J. Dimachkie, Mazen M. Saperstein, David S. Mozaffar, Tahseen Wolfe, Gil I. Mayo, Matthew S. Badger, Gary J. Katzin, Lara Ritt, Elissa Greer, Michelle DiStefano, Joseph Schmidt, Patrick M. |
author_sort | Levine, Todd D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This project is an effort to understand how orders for IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) are documented and prescribed by physicians, and subsequently, how they are reviewed by insurance companies for the treatment of immune neuropathies. METHODS: A panel of neuromuscular specialists reviewed case records from 248 IVIg-naive patients whose in-home IVIg infusion treatment was submitted to insurance for authorization. After reviewing a case record, 1 panelist was asked to make a diagnosis and to answer several questions about the treatment. A second panelist reviewed the original record and follow-up records that were obtained for reauthorization of additional treatments and was asked to determine whether the patient had responded to the treatment. RESULTS: Our specialists believed that only 32.2% of 248 patients had an immune neuropathy and were appropriate candidates for IVIg therapy, whereas 46.4% had neuropathies that were not immune mediated. Only 15.3% of cases met electrodiagnostic criteria for a demyelinating neuropathy. Our specialists believed that 36.7% of 128 cases with follow-up records had responded to therapy. In cases in which the initial reviewer had predicted that there would be a response to IVIg, the second reviewer found that 54% had responded. This is compared with a 27% response rate when the first reviewer predicted that there would be no response (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Our expert review finds that the diagnosis of immune neuropathies made by providers, and subsequently approved for IVIg therapy by payers, is incorrect in a large percentage of cases. If payers include an expert in their review process, it would improve patient selection, appropriate use, and continuation of treatment with this expensive therapeutic agent. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6276327 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62763272018-12-18 Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study Levine, Todd D. Katz, Jonathan S. Barohn, Richard Vaughan, Leslie J. Dimachkie, Mazen M. Saperstein, David S. Mozaffar, Tahseen Wolfe, Gil I. Mayo, Matthew S. Badger, Gary J. Katzin, Lara Ritt, Elissa Greer, Michelle DiStefano, Joseph Schmidt, Patrick M. Neurol Clin Pract Review BACKGROUND: This project is an effort to understand how orders for IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) are documented and prescribed by physicians, and subsequently, how they are reviewed by insurance companies for the treatment of immune neuropathies. METHODS: A panel of neuromuscular specialists reviewed case records from 248 IVIg-naive patients whose in-home IVIg infusion treatment was submitted to insurance for authorization. After reviewing a case record, 1 panelist was asked to make a diagnosis and to answer several questions about the treatment. A second panelist reviewed the original record and follow-up records that were obtained for reauthorization of additional treatments and was asked to determine whether the patient had responded to the treatment. RESULTS: Our specialists believed that only 32.2% of 248 patients had an immune neuropathy and were appropriate candidates for IVIg therapy, whereas 46.4% had neuropathies that were not immune mediated. Only 15.3% of cases met electrodiagnostic criteria for a demyelinating neuropathy. Our specialists believed that 36.7% of 128 cases with follow-up records had responded to therapy. In cases in which the initial reviewer had predicted that there would be a response to IVIg, the second reviewer found that 54% had responded. This is compared with a 27% response rate when the first reviewer predicted that there would be no response (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Our expert review finds that the diagnosis of immune neuropathies made by providers, and subsequently approved for IVIg therapy by payers, is incorrect in a large percentage of cases. If payers include an expert in their review process, it would improve patient selection, appropriate use, and continuation of treatment with this expensive therapeutic agent. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6276327/ /pubmed/30564497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000520 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Review Levine, Todd D. Katz, Jonathan S. Barohn, Richard Vaughan, Leslie J. Dimachkie, Mazen M. Saperstein, David S. Mozaffar, Tahseen Wolfe, Gil I. Mayo, Matthew S. Badger, Gary J. Katzin, Lara Ritt, Elissa Greer, Michelle DiStefano, Joseph Schmidt, Patrick M. Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study |
title | Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study |
title_full | Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study |
title_fullStr | Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study |
title_full_unstemmed | Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study |
title_short | Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study |
title_sort | review process for ivig treatment: lessons learned from insights neuropathy study |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276327/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000520 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT levinetoddd reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT katzjonathans reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT barohnrichard reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT vaughanlesliej reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT dimachkiemazenm reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT sapersteindavids reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT mozaffartahseen reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT wolfegili reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT mayomatthews reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT badgergaryj reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT katzinlara reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT rittelissa reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT greermichelle reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT distefanojoseph reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy AT schmidtpatrickm reviewprocessforivigtreatmentlessonslearnedfrominsightsneuropathystudy |