Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative naloxone distribution strategies: First responder and lay distribution in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. is facing an unprecedented number of opioid-related overdose deaths, and an array of other countries have experienced increases in opioid-related fatalities. In the U.S., naloxone is increasingly distributed to first responders to improve early administration to overdose victims, but its cost-effectiveness has not been studied. Lay distribution, in contrast, has been found to be cost-effective, but rising naloxone prices and increased mortality due to synthetic opioids may reduce cost-effectiveness. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of increased naloxone distribution to (a) people likely to witness or experience overdose ("laypeople"); (b) police and firefighters; (c) emergency medical services (EMS) personnel; and (d) combinations of these groups. METHODS: We use a decision-analytic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of eight naloxone distribution strategies. We use a lifetime horizon and conduct both a societal analysis (accounting for productivity and criminal justice system costs) and a health sector analysis. We calculate: the ranking of strategies by net monetary benefit; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; and number of fatal overdoses. RESULTS: High distribution to all three groups maximized net monetary benefit and minimized fatal overdoses; it averted 21% of overdose deaths compared to minimum distribution. High distribution to laypeople and one of the other groups comprised the second and third best strategies. The majority of health gains resulted from increased lay distribution. In the societal analysis, every strategy was cost-saving compared to its next-best alternative; cost savings were greatest in the maximum distribution strategy. In the health sector analysis, all undominated strategies were cost-effective. Results were highly robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing naloxone distribution to laypeople and first responder groups would maximize health gains and be cost-effective. If feasible, communities should distribute naloxone to all groups; otherwise, distribution to laypeople and one of the first responder groups should be emphasized.

Patient-provider communications about pharmacogenomic results increase patient recall of medication changes.

Effective doctor-patient communication is critical for disease management, especially when considering genetic information. We studied patient-provider communications after implementing a point-of-care pharmacogenomic results delivery system to understand whether pharmacogenomic results are discussed and whether medication recall is impacted. Outpatients undergoing preemptive pharmacogenomic testing (cases), non-genotyped controls, and study providers were surveyed from October 2012-May 2017. Patient responses were compared between visits where pharmacogenomic results guided prescribing versus visits where pharmacogenomics did not guide prescribing. Provider knowledge of pharmacogenomics, before and during study participation, was also analyzed. Both providers and case patients frequently reported discussions of genetic results after visits where pharmacogenomic information guided prescribing. Importantly, medication changes from visits where pharmacogenomics influenced prescribing were more often recalled than non-pharmacogenomic guided medication changes (OR = 3.3 [1.6-6.7], p = 0.001). Case patients who had separate visits where pharmacogenomics did and did not, respectively, influence prescribing more often remembered medication changes from visits where genomic-based guidance was used (OR = 3.4 [1.2-9.3], p = 0.02). Providers also displayed dramatic increases in personal genomic understanding through program participation (94% felt at least somewhat informed about pharmacogenomics post-participation, compared to 61% at baseline, p = 0.04). Using genomic information during prescribing increases patient-provider communications, patient medication recall, and provider understanding of genomics, important ancillary benefits to clinical use of pharmacogenomics.

Assessment of provider-perceived barriers to clinical use of pharmacogenomics during participation in an institutional implementation study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study provider attitudes of and perceived barriers to the clinical use of pharmacogenomics before and during participation in an implementation program. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: From 2012 to 2017, providers were recruited. After completing semistructured interviews (SSIs) about pharmacogenomics, providers received training on and access to a clinical decision support tool housing patient-specific pharmacogenomic results. Thematic analysis of SSI was conducted (inter-rater reliability κ≥0.75). Providers also completed surveys before and during study participation, and provider-perceived barriers to pharmacogenomic implementation were analyzed. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged from the SSI (listed from most frequent to least): decision-making, concerns with pharmacogenomic adoption, outcome expectancy, provider knowledge of pharmacogenomics, patient attitudes, individualized treatment, and provider interest in pharmacogenomics. Although there was prestudy enthusiasm among all providers, concerns with clinical utility, time, results accession, and knowledge of pharmacogenomics were frequently stated at baseline. Despite this, adoption of pharmacogenomics was robust, as patient-specific results were accessed at 64% of visits, and medication changes were influenced by provided pharmacogenomic information 42% of the time. Providers reported they had enough time to evaluate the information and the results were easily understood on 74 and 98% of surveys, respectively. Nevertheless, providers consistently felt there was insufficient pharmacogenomic information for most drugs they prescribed and clear guidelines for using pharmacogenomic information were lacking. CONCLUSION: Despite initial concerns about adequate time and knowledge for adoption, providers frequently utilized pharmacogenomic results. Provider-perceived barriers to wider use included lack of clear guidelines and evidence for most drugs, highlighting important considerations for the field of pharmacogenomics.