Potential of pharmacogenetics in minimizing drug therapy problems in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: With advancements in CF drug development, people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF) now take a median of seven medications daily, increasing treatment complexity, risk of drug therapy problems (DTPs), and interference with treatment goals. Given that some of these DTPs can be prevented with preemptive pharmacogenetic testing, the overall goal of this study was to test the clinical utility of a multi-gene pharmacogenetics (PGx) panel in potentially reducing DTPs in PwCF. METHODS: A population based retrospective study of patients with CF was conducted at the University of Utah Health Care System. The patients were genotyped for CYP450 enzymes using a pharmacogenomic assay, and their drug utilization information was obtained retrospectively. This pharmacogenomic information was combined with clinical guidelines to predict the number of actionable PGx interventions in this patient cohort. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were included in this study. In the patient sample, a minimum of one order of actionable PGx medication was observed in 75 % of the cases. Results revealed that 4.2 treatment modifications per 10 patients can be enabled with the help of a PGx intervention in this patient population. Additionally, our findings suggest that polymorphisms in CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 are most likely to be the primary contributors to DTP's within PwCF. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the PGx panel has the potential to help alleviate the clinical burden of DTPs in PwCF and can assist in informing pharmacotherapy recommendations. Future research should validate these findings and evaluate which subgroups of PwCF would most benefit from pharmacogenetic testing.

The implementation of value-based frameworks, clinical care pathways, and alternative payment models for cancer care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is a significant driver of rising health care costs in the United States, where the annual cost of cancer care is estimated to reach $246 billion in 2030. As a result, cancer centers are considering moving away from fee-for-service models and transitioning to value-based care models, including value-based frameworks (VBFs), clinical care pathways (CCPs), and alternative payment models (APMs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers and motivations for using value-based care models from the perspectives of physicians and quality officers (QOs) at US cancer centers. METHODS: Sites were recruited from cancer centers in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions in a 15/15/20/10 relative distribution. Cancer centers were identified based on prior research relationships and known participation in the Oncology Care Model or other APMs. Based on a literature search, multiple choice and open-ended questions were developed for the survey. A link to the survey was emailed to hematologists/oncologists and QOs at academic and community cancer centers from August to November 2020. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 136 sites were contacted; 28 (21%) centers returned completed surveys, which were included in the final analysis. 45 surveys (23 from community centers, 22 from academic centers) were completed: 59% (26/44), 76% (34/45), and 67% (30/45) of physicians/QOs respondents had used or implemented a VBF, CCP, and APM, respectively. The top motivator for VBF use was "producing real-world data for providers, payers, and patients" (50% [13/26]). Among those not using CCPs, the most common barrier was a "lack of consensus on pathway choices" (64% [7/11]). For APMs, the most common difficulty was that "innovations in health care services and therapies must be adopted at the site's own financial risk" (27% [8/30]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to measure improvements in cancer health outcomes was a large motivator for implementing value-based models. However, heterogeneity in practice size, limited resources, and potential increase in costs were possible barriers to implementation. Payers need to be willing to negotiate with cancer centers and providers to implement the payment model that will most benefit patients. The future integration of VBFs, CCPs, and APMs will depend on reducing the complexity and burden of implementation. DISCLOSURES :Dr Panchal was affiliated with the University of Utah at the time this study was conducted and discloses current employment with ZS. Dr McBride discloses employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Huggar and Dr Copher report employment, stock, and other ownership interests in Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Bristol Myers Squibb to the University of Utah.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing evidence that COVID-19 has unmasked the true magnitude of health inequity worldwide. Policies and guidance for containing the infection and reducing the COVID-19 related deaths have proven to be effective, however the extent to which health inequity factors were considered in these policies is rather unknown. The aim of this study is to measure the extent to which COVID-19 related policies reflect equity considerations by focusing on the global policy landscape around wearing masks and personal protection equipment (PPE). METHODS: A systematic search for published documents on COVID-19 and masks/PPE was conducted across six databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and Psycinfo. Reviews, policy documents, briefs related to COVID-19 and masks/PPE were included in the review. To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in the policy documents, a guidance framework known as 'PROGRESS-Plus': Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, disability etc.) was utilized. RESULTS: This review included 212 policy documents. Out of 212 policy documents, 190 policy documents (89.62%) included at least one PROGRESS-plus component. Most of the policy documents (n = 163, 85.79%) focused on "occupation" component of the PROGRESS-plus followed by personal characteristics associated with discrimination (n = 4;2.11%), place of residence (n = 2;1.05%) and education (n = 1;0.53%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most of the policy documents (n = 176, 83.01%) were focused on "workers" such as healthcare workers, mortuary workers, school workers, transportation workers, essential workers etc. Of the remaining policy documents, most were targeted towards whole population (n = 30; 14.15%). Contrary to "worker focused" policy documents, most of the 'whole population focused' policy documents didn't have a PROGRESS-plus equity component rendering them equity limiting for the society. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights even if policies considered health inequity during the design/implementation, this consideration was often one dimensional in nature. In addition, population wide policies should be carefully designed and implemented after identifying relevant equity related barriers in order to produce better outcomes for the whole society.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Options in Resectable and Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison.

OBJECTIVES: FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab/P), and gemcitabine-capecitabine (gem-cap) demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic cancer (PC). It is still unclear which chemotherapy regimen is the most optimal. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review (SR) and indirect comparison to compare safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus gem-nab/P and gem-cap in PC. METHODS: An SR was conducted in several databases from inception to November 2020. RCTs investigating resectable or advanced PC were included. Primary outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS)/progression-free survival (PFS)/relapse-free survival (RFS), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were pooled using a random effects model. Indirect comparisons were done to compare FOLFIRINOX versus gem-cap and gem-nab/P. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified involving 6,564 patients. Indirect comparisons showed FOLFIRINOX had significantly better OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-0.99]; advanced: HR 0.71 [0.60-0.85]) and RFS/DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.67 [0.55-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.65 [0.57-0.74]) compared to gem-cap as well as OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-1.00]; advanced: HR 0.73 [0.54-0.98]) and DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.66 [0.53-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) compared to gem-nab/P. FOLFIRINOX increased grade 3/4 AE risk compared to gem-cap and gem-nab/P. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRINOX is associated with significant survival benefits compared to gem-nab/P and gem-cap. However, it is important to consider the increased grade 3/4 AE risk associated with FOLFIRINOX.