Publicly Funded Cancer Care: Are Adjuvant Therapies Prioritized Over Treatment of Metastatic Cancer? The Israeli Experience.

PURPOSE: In Israel, a public committee advises which new medications should be reimbursed subject to an annual budget allocation. The committee considers clinical trial outcomes, professional societies' preferences, projected budget impacts, and other social and ethical aspects. The Israeli oncologists' society places a strong emphasis on prioritizing adjuvant therapies because of their potential to advance cure. In 2023, several novel adjuvant therapies were suggested for national funding. Our objective was to ascertain whether Israeli decision makers have embraced the practice of prioritizing budgets for therapies with curative intent over late-disease therapy. METHODS: We collected data on all proposed cancer therapies for the 2023 update: indications, treatment settings, European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) score, and whether accepted for reimbursement. The rates of acceptance were compared between drugs in curative and noncurative settings. Data were extracted from the official Israeli Ministry of Health publications and ESMO-MCBS website. RESULTS: Seven of the eight proposed therapies with curative intent received reimbursement approval (88%), in contrast to 11 of the 55 therapies for advanced/metastatic stages (20%). Among all advanced disease therapies with a high ESMO-MCBS score of 4, only four of 16 (25%) secured reimbursement approval. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed that during the 2023 reimbursement deliberations, Israeli policymakers embraced the prioritization of potentially curative therapies over treatments for incurable cancers, including several interventions that have demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival and/or quality of life. Introducing objective cost-effectiveness measures as a guiding framework for comparing competing medications may offer some resolution to this complex challenge.

Robust antibody response after a third BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the second among immunocompromised and healthy individuals, a prospective longitudinal cohort study.

PURPOSE: As protection from COVID-19 following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine showed a time dependent waning, a third (booster) dose was administrated. This study aims to compare the antibody response following the third dose versus the second and to evaluate post-booster seroconversion. METHODS: A prospective observational study conducted in Maccabi Healthcare Services. Serial SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests, 1,2,3 and 6 months following the second vaccine dose and one month following the third were obtained. Neutralizing antibody levels were measured in a subset of participants. Per individual SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG titer ratios were calculated one month after the booster administration compared to titers one month following the second dose and prior to booster. RESULTS: Among 110 participants,56 (51%) were women. Mean age was 61.7 ± 1.9 years and 66 (60%) were immunocompromised. One month after third dose, IgG titers were induced 7.83 (95 %CI 5.25-11.67) folds and 2.40 (95 %CI 1.90-3.03) folds compared to one month after the second, in the immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups, respectively. Of the 17 immunocompromised participants who were seronegative after the second dose, 4 (24%) became seropositive following the third. Comparing the titers prior to the third dose, an increase of 50.7 (95 %CI 32.5-79.1) fold in the immunocompromised group and 25.7 (95 %CI 19.1-34.7) fold in and immunocompetent group, was observed. CONCLUSION: A third BNT162b2 vaccine elicited robust humoral response, superior to the response observed following the second, among immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals.

Multidisciplinary work promotes preventive medicine and health education in primary care: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Preventive medicine and health education are among the strategies used in coping with chronic diseases. However, it is yet to be determined what effect do personal and organizational aspects have on its' implementation in primary care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in order to assess and compare preventive medicine and health education activities in three types of primary care models: solo working independent physicians, nurse-physician collaborations and teamwork (nurses, dietitians and social workers working alongside a physician). Questionnaires were emailed to 1203 health professionals between September and November 2015, working at Maccabi Healthcare Services, the second largest Israeli healthcare organization. Self-reported rates of health education groups conducted, proactive appointments scheduling and self-empowerment techniques use during routine appointments, were compared among the three models. Independent variables included clinic size as well as health professionals' occupation, health behaviors and training. A series of multivariate linear regressions were performed in order to identify predictors of preventive medicine and health education implementation. Computerized health records (CHR) validated our self-report data through data regarding patients' health behaviours and outcomes, including health education group registration, adherence to occult blood tests and influenza vaccinations as well as blood lipid levels. RESULTS: Responders included physicians, nurses, dietitians and social workers working at 921 clinics (n = 516, response rate = 31%). Higher rates of proactive appointments scheduling and health education groups were found in the Teamwork and Collaboration models, compared to the Independent Physician Model. Occupation (nurses and dietitians), group facilitation training and personal screening adherence were identified as preventive medicine and health education implementation predictors. Group registration, occult blood tests, healthy population's well-controlled blood lipids as well as influenza vaccinations among chronically ill patients were all significantly higher in the Teamwork and Collaboration models, compared to the Independent Physician Model. CONCLUSIONS: The Teamwork and Collaboration models presented higher rates of preventive medicine and health education implementation as well as higher rates of patients' positive health behaviours documented in these models. This suggests multidisciplinary primary care models may contribute to population's health by enhancing preventive medicine and health education implementation alongside health professionals' characteristics.