Why health policies should be transnational: A case for East Asia Pacific countries.

This paper argues that health policies should transcend national boundaries yet should not reach the supranational level. Along with multinational global health efforts, such cross-national health policies are essential to leverage joint efforts by countries learning from their peers that experience similar health system challenges. In our analysis, we used World Bank Health, Nutrition, and Population (HNP) data from 1995 to 2014 for East Asia Pacific (EAP) countries to explore health system comparability across member nations. We applied a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method and a squared Euclidean distance approach to classify 24 EAP countries into four relatively stable clusters based on their (dis)similarities over nine selected health expenditure and health system performance related indicators. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the discreteness of the formed clusters. Each cluster had unique characteristics based on the included indicators and health system performance of the member countries. We present transnational health policy recommendations for the EAP region based on both our use of robust methodology and the resulting comparative clusters.

Vital Directions for Pharmacy Education and Practice: Report of the 2017-18 Argus Commission.

The Argus Commission examined the National Academy of Medicine's publication "Vital Directions for Health and Health Care" and engaged with six guests from outside academic pharmacy to identify the salience of the key issues and recommendations for pharmacy education and practice. To be part of the changing health care system we must prepare graduates and faculty to be patient- and community-centered, to command electronic systems of communication with members of interprofessional teams and to create and apply real-world evidence. Sustainable practice models will depend upon the measurement of performance and the assessment of the value produced by clinicians. To that end, the Commission advances a proposed policy related to the knowledge graduates must possess in key areas, including informatics, data analytics, genomics and value-based payment schemes. This will require new forms of faculty development and engagement between AACP members and their communities.

Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK. OBJECTIVE: Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

Economic Evaluation for USA of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer include monotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM); combinations of GEM with oxaliplatin (OX + GEM), cisplatin (CIS + GEM), capecitabine (CAP + GEM), or nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P + GEM); and the non-GEM combination FOLFIRINOX. Combination therapies have yielded better survival outcomes than GEM alone. A sponsor-independent economic evaluation of these regimens has not been conducted for USA. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of these regimens from the payer perspective for USA. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed disease, death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years; life-years) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios. FOLFIRINOX clinical data were obtained from trial and indirect estimates were obtained from network meta-analyses. Lifetime horizon and 3%/year discount rates were used. RESULTS: FOLFIRINOX was the most expensive regimen and GEM the least costly regimen. Compared to GEM, all but one (CIS + GEM) regimen were found to be more effective in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. Compared to GEM, the incremental cost-utility ratios for CAP + GEM, OX-GEM, NAB-P + GEM, and FOLFIRINOX, were US$180,503, US$197,993, US$204,833, and US$265,718 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, respectively; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$88,181, US$87,620, US$135,683, and US$167,040 per additional life-year, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.

Aligning the AACP Strategic Engagement Agenda with Key Federal Priorities in Health: Report of the 2016-17 Argus Commission.

The Argus Commission identified three major federal priorities related to health care, including the precision medicine initiative, the Cancer Moonshot and the opioid abuse epidemic. Current activities at the federal level were summarized and an analysis of activities within the profession, and academic pharmacy specifically, was prepared. The implications for pharmacy education, research and practice are compelling in all three areas. Recommendations, suggestions and two policy statements aim to optimize the attention to these priorities by the academy. Further, aligning the AACP Strategic Engagement agenda with the opportunities and threats acknowledged in the analysis is essential.

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective. METHODS: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: NAB-P + GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P + GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI = 0.59-1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P + GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P + GEM over FOLFIRINOX.

Economic Evaluations of First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Pancreatic Cancer: A Critical Review.

Effect sizes of efficacy of first-line treatments for (metastatic) pancreas cancer are constrained, underscoring the need for evaluations of the efficacy-to-cost relationship. We critically review economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer since the 1997 introduction of gemcitabine. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE (1997-2015), and the websites of health technology assessment agencies. Two authors independently reviewed economic studies for eligibility in this review; evaluated peer-reviewed, journal-published studies in terms of the Drummond Checklist; and critiqued the technical and scientific merit of all studies. Sixteen pharmacoeconomic evaluations were included: ten published in nine peer-reviewed journals and six on three websites. Six were on single-agent therapies and ten on combination therapies. Analyses conducted included cost-effectiveness (three studies), cost-utility (one study), or combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (12 studies). Studies diverged in results, mainly because of different assumptions, methods, inputs, and country-specific guidelines. The two most recent regimens, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and the combination of fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), were evaluated in an indirect comparison, yielding a statistically similar benefit in overall survival but superior progression-free survival for FOLFIRINOX. NAB-P + GEM showed greater economic benefit over FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, the divergence in results observed across studies is attributable to economic drivers that are specific to countries and their healthcare (financing) systems. No recommendations regarding the relative economic benefit of treatment regimens, general or country-specific, are made as the purpose of pharmacoeconomic analysis is to inform policy decision-making and clinical practice, not set policy or define clinical practice.

Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P+GEM) has shown superior efficacy over GEM monotherapy in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC). Independent cost-effectiveness/utility analyses of NAB-P+GEM from the payer perspective have not been conducted for the UK. METHODS: A Markov model simulating the health outcomes and total costs was developed to estimate the life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for patients with MPC in a base case and in a probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analysis. Total cost included the cost of supportive care medications, administration, chemotherapy, disease monitoring, and adverse reactions; and was discounted at 3.5% per year. A full lifetime horizon and third party payer perspective was chosen. RESULTS: The total cost of NAB-P+GEM was £5466 higher than the cost for GEM. Respectively, LYGs were 0.97 vs 0.79 and QALYs were 0.52 vs 0.45, with ICER of £30 367/LYG and ICUR of £78 086/QALY, confirmed by PSA. CONCLUSIONS: The superior survival efficacy of NAB-P+GEM over GEM in the management of MPC is associated with positive cost-effectiveness and cost-utility.

Clinical and economic effects of suboptimally controlled asthma.

Patients with difficult-to-treat or suboptimally controlled asthma consume a disproportionate share of asthma health care resources. Treatment strategies that minimize exacerbations may decrease the need for unscheduled medical services, reduce emergency department visits, and minimize asthma-related hospitalizations. Clinical trial evidence indicates the immunoglobulin-E blocker omalizumab reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations, minimizes symptoms, and improves lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma that is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Treatment with omalizumab of patients with suboptimally controlled asthma may reduce the clinical and economic burden of asthma.