Background The U.S.-Thai Consortium for Pharmacy Education is a long-standing collaboration between the U.S. and Thailand that primarily focuses on faculty development. The success of this partnership has contributed to the improvement of pharmacy education and the advancement of pharmacy practice in Thailand. It may also serve as a model for collaborative efforts in pharmacy education and practice across Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. This study was designed to explore the views and perceptions on goals, directions, and trends for the new U.S.- ASEAN Consortium for Pharmacy Education.Methods A qualitative study was used. A focus group with semi-structured questions was conducted with 12 representative faculty members from nine ASEAN countries and the U.S. Verbatim transcriptions were used to perform thematic analysis with investigator triangulation.Results Four key themes emerged: perceptions, challenges, expectations, and directions. Participants perceived the U.S.-ASEAN Consortium as a strategic networking platform for expanding international collaborations. Challenges were identified at both the institutional and national levels, with curriculum differences, financial constraints, and administrative issues affecting institutions, while cultural and language differences pose further obstacles. At the national level, top-down administrative structures were identified as restrictions. The main expressed benefit of joining the Consortium was enhancement of student experiences, including student exchange programmes. Gaining insights into organisational administration was also perceived as one of the benefits. Participants recognised that a successful collaboration required identifying common interests, setting goals, and proposing strategies, including developing a master plan, harmonising programmes, and establishing a uniform competency framework. Regular meetings and resource-sharing were identified as also essential to maintaining the engagement of Consortium members.Conclusion The U.S.-ASEAN Consortium was perceived as a platform to increase opportunities to collaboratively connect with other pharmacy schools internationally. The establishment of common interests and strategies was recommended to keep the collaboration moving forward.

Purpose: COVID-19 patients in intensive care units (ICUs) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) have few available treatment options. PANAMO, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of vilobelimab, which blocks the inflammatory process caused by complement component 5a, demonstrated a significant mortality benefit at 28 and 60 days in these patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of vilobelimab plus standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone. The model simulated progression from severe COVID-19 to survival or death over a lifetime horizon. Outcomes data (COVID-19 all-cause mortality and renal replacement therapy) were incorporated from the PANAMO trial. COVID-19 mortality estimates were based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention age-specific survival data. Utility values and hospital costs came from the literature. Vilobelimab cost was obtained from RED BOOK Online. Results: For COVID-19 ICU patients, total costs of care were $103,414 (SOC) and $132,247 (SOC plus vilobelimab), respectively, resulting in an incremental cost of $28,833. SOC provided 6.70 QALYs versus 7.99 QALYs for vilobelimab, an additional 1.29 QALYs. The ICER for vilobelimab plus SOC versus SOC alone was $22,287/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the cost-effectiveness result as vilobelimab plus SOC was favored at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 in over 81% of iterations. Conclusion: Vilobelimab provides a cost-effective option to treat ICU patients with severe COVID-19 receiving IMV compared to SOC, at well below the commonly accepted $50,000 US willingness-to-pay threshold.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine – 2; hydromorphone – 3; fentanyl – 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Background: The association of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with functional status in the general Medicare population are not well established. Objectives: This study examined patient-reported survey data linked with Medicare claims to describe the burden of these vision-threatening retinal diseases (VTRDs) among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked with Medicare Fee-for-Service claims data from 2006 to 2018 were used in a nationally representative retrospective pooled cross-sectional population-based comparison study. Outcomes between community-dwelling beneficiaries with nAMD (n = 1228), DME (n = 101), or RVO (n = 251) were compared with community-dwelling beneficiaries without any VTRDs (n = 104 088), controlling for baseline demographic and clinical differences. Beneficiaries with a diagnosis of nAMD, DME, or RVO during the data year were included; those with other VTRDs were excluded. Outcomes included vision function and loss, overall functioning as assessed by difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (iADLs), anxiety/depression, falls, and fractures. Results: In patient cohorts with nAMD, DME, and RVO, approximately one-third (34.2%-38.3%) reported “a little trouble seeing” (vs 28.3% for controls), and 26%, 17%, and 9%, respectively, reported “a lot of trouble seeing/blindness” (vs 5% of controls). Difficulty walking and doing heavy housework were the most reported ADLs and iADLs, respectively. Compared with those without VTRDs, beneficiaries with nAMD had higher odds of diagnosed vision loss (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 4.06-7.16; P < .001) and difficulties with iADLs (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.80; P = .005); no differences were observed for DME or RVO vs control. After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status, comorbidities, and other relevant covariates, nAMD, DME, and RVO were not significantly associated with anxiety/depression, falls, or fractures. Discussion: Patients with nAMD or DME were more likely to report severe visual impairment than those without VTRDs, although only those with nAMD were more likely to be diagnosed with vision loss. Conclusions: Patients with nAMD continue to experience more vision impairment and worse functional status compared with a similar population of Medicare beneficiaries despite availability of therapies like antivascular endothelial growth factor to treat retinal disease.

BACKGROUND:There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process. METHODS:A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee. RESULTS:Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs. CONCLUSIONS:Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.

Purpose: Knee osteoarthritis (OA), a leading cause of chronic pain and disability, affects an estimated 32.5 million adults in the United States. Knee OA patients receive care from various physician specialties, including orthopedists (OS), rheumatologists (RH), sports medicine (SM) physicians, and pain specialists (PS). Current treatments for knee OA target symptoms with conservative lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatments, such as over-the-counter (OTC) or prescription (Rx) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and intra-articular corticosteroids (IA CS) or hyaluronic acid (IA HA). Finally, severely painful and late-stage disease often leads to surgical intervention, such as total knee replacement (TKR). Organizational guidelines provide treatment recommendations for knee OA patients; however, these are often in idealized settings, and there is limited documentation on real-world treatments and treatment decisions among practitioners. The purpose of this study was to assess knee OA patient characteristics and treatments across four specialties of interest: RH, OS, SM, and PS. Methods: Board-certified physicians with ≥ 2 years of practice and who were seeing ≥ 10 knee OA patients per week participated in a chart review. Data on their two most recent knee OA patients (structured questions and answers from patient medical records) were collected from March to April 2019. Demographics, comorbidities, and treatments (time to treatment, line of treatment, discontinuations, etc.) were captured. As no patient-identifying information was included, this project was exempt from IRB review and HIPAA consent. Because this study was designed to assess effect modifications, a confidence level of 90% was used. Results: Patient Characteristics: The chart review included 854 patients who visited RH (n=250), OS (n=352), SM (n=152), and PS (n=100). Within the total cohort, mean age was 65.2 years, mean BMI was 30.7, and 51% were female. Mean BMI was significantly higher in SM (33), PS (31.6) versus OS (30.2), and RH (29.8) patients. RH saw significantly more female patients (58%) than OS (47%). Significantly more PS patients were unemployed (73%) and unemployed due to limitations of function that impacted their ability to perform work (15%) than those visiting other specialists (OS, 57% and 5%, respectively; RH, 60% and 7%; SM, 52% and 5%). The mean time from patient-reported symptom onset to physician knee OA diagnosis was 3.4 years, whereas the mean time from patient-reported OA diagnosis to previous TKR was 5.3 years. The mean number of comorbidities was 2.6, with RH (2.6), SM (2.8), and PS (3.2) seeing patients with significantly more comorbidities than OS (2.3). The most common comorbidities of interest included hypertension (57%), obesity (38%), and hyperlipidemia (33%). In addition, PS patients reported significantly more chronic back pain (38%) than those visiting other specialists (OS, RH, or SM; 17%, 19%, or 24%, respectively) as well as more anxiety/depression (28%) than those visiting OS (17%) or RH (16%). Mean pain at last visit was 5.6 (0-10 NRS), and PS patients had significantly greater pain (6.5) than those visiting other specialists. Treatments: OTC NSAIDs and acetaminophen (APAP) were first-line recommendations in over 90% of patients’ charts (Figure 1). IA CS were used as a first-line treatment in approximately 20% of patients, and IA HA was used as a first-line treatment in approximately 10% of patients; usage was similar across specialties. Second-line treatments were rank ordered IA CS>OTC/Rx NSAIDs/APAP>IA HA, and third-line treatments were ordered IA HA>IA CS>OTC/Rx NSAIDs/APAP. Reasons for treatment discontinuation included lack of efficacy/worsening of symptoms, adverse event (AE)/safety concerns, and formulary/cost issues (Table 1). IA CS demonstrated the highest discontinuation rate (82.4%) and shortest mean duration of treatment (1.4 years), although reasons for discontinuation were unknown in 48% of patients. Prescription antidepressants (25%), OTC treatments (27%), and APAP (28.5%) had the lowest discontinuation rates. Rx NSAIDs had the longest mean duration of treatment (3.7 years), followed by opioids (3.2 years). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for discontinuation and was greatest in patients receiving single-injection IA HA (61%). AE/safety concerns were the primary reason for discontinuation of opioids (51%) and the second most common reason for discontinuation of Rx NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Limitations of this study included potential selection bias, confounding by risk factors, small sample size, and missing data. Conclusions: Despite some differences in patient characteristics and comorbidities across specialties, treatment strategies for knee OA were largely similar. Among the US knee OA population, PS saw more patients with pain syndromes and higher BMIs, whereas RH saw more patients with RA or other rheumatic diseases. OS patients were significantly more likely to use OTC NSAIDs/APAP than RH patients and less likely than SM and PS patients to use Rx NSAIDs. A lack of efficacy drove most treatment changes, particularly in the case of IA HA. These observations suggest a need for additional therapeutic options to treat knee OA patients, particularly in light of the high proportions of existing treatments that lost efficacy or presented safety concerns.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

AIMS:To estimate the budget impact of adding capmatinib, the first FDA approved MET inhibitor, to a US commercial or Medicare health plan for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors have a mutation that leads to MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping.METHODS:Target population size was estimated using published epidemiology data. Clinical data were obtained from the GEOMETRY mono-1 capmatinib trial and published trials. Treatments in the market mix included crizotinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and chemotherapy. Uptake of capmatinib and testing rates were based on market research. All costs (drug acquisition and administration, pre-progression, progression, terminal care, adverse event, and testing) were estimated based on public sources (2020 USD).RESULTS:The number of patients eligible for capmatinib in the first three years was estimated to be 2-3 in a hypothetical 1 million member commercial plan and 34-44 in a hypothetical 1 million member Medicare plan each year. The estimated total budget impact ranged from $9,695 to $67,725 for a commercial plan and $141,350 to $985,695 for Medicare. With capmatinib included, a marginal per member per month budget impact was estimated (commercial: $0.0008 to $0.0056; Medicare: $0.0118 to $0.0821). Capmatinib inclusion resulted in lower medical costs (commercial: -$0.0003 to -$0.0007; Medicare: -$0.0037 to -$0.0106), partially offsetting increased drug costs ($0.0011 to $0.0064; $0.0154 to $0.0928, respectively), and were primarily driven by reductions in progression and terminal care costs (-$0.0003 to -$0.0009; -$0.0037 to -$0.0125, respectively). The results were most sensitive to capmatinib market share, capmatinib price, and treatment duration.LIMITATIONS:Certain assumptions were applied to the model to account for inputs with limited evidence.CONCLUSIONS:The estimated budget impact of including capmatinib for mNSCLC with a METex14 skipping mutation is minimal, and the increased drug costs were partially offset by savings in AEs, and progression-related and terminal care costs.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard of safety and efficacy evidence, are conducted in select patients that may not mirror real-world populations. As a result, healthcare decision makers may have limited information when making formulary decisions, especially in oncology, given accelerated regulatory approvals and niche patient populations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies may help address these knowledge gaps and help inform oncology formulary decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use and relevance of RWE in informing oncology formulary decisionmaking. METHODS: A national survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions evaluated 4 key areas: (1) the value of RWE, (2) barriers to RWE, (3) sources of RWE, and (4) use of RWE in outcomes-based contracting. The survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights program in February 2020. Ten additional respondents were invited to discuss the survey results. The survey results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and were evaluated by the respondent's plan size, type, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in responses for categorical data were compared using a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher's Exact test. Two-tailed values are reported and a level of ≤ 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: The national survey had a 45.9% response rate, with 106 payers responding. Most were from managed care organizations (MCOs; 47.5%) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs; 37.4%), with 54.5% from large plans (≥ 1 million lives) and 45.5% from small plans (< 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% overall indicating their job was a pharmacy administrator. Most (84.9%) used RWE to inform formulary decisions in oncology to support comparative effectiveness in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials (4.1 on a scale of 1 = Not At All Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful) and validation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations (4.0). Almost half (41.5%) used RWE results to inform off-label usage decisions. Payers valued RWE pre-launch to inform formulary and contracting decisions and desired real-world comparative effectiveness data post-launch to validate coverage decisions. However, the majority of payers (54.7%) did not conduct their own real-world studies. Commonly considered RWE sources included claims data (79.2%), medical records (68.9%), prospective cohort studies (60.4%), patient registries (36.8%), and patient outcome surveys (33.0%). Barriers to conducting internal RWE studies included the lack of resources and personnel, analytic capabilities, appropriate in-house data, and perceived value in conducting analyses. Payers expressed interest in using outcomes-based contracting in oncology; few have direct experience, and operationalizing through value measurement is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: RWE providing comparative treatment data, validation of NCCN treatment recommendations, and information on off-label usage are appreciated pre launch with post launch validation. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer led the development of the survey and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer; Oderda, Biskupiak, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Malone was paid by Millcreek Outcomes as a consultant on this project.

BACKGROUND: To support oncology formulary decisions, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, payers desire data beyond what regulators review. Economic models showing financial impact of treatments may help, but data on payers' use of economic models in oncology are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess payer perceptions regarding use of economic models in informing oncology formulary decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving health economists and payers developed a survey containing singleanswer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists, who were invited to discuss survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Two-tailed values were reported and an alpha level of 0.05 or less was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers completed the survey (45.9%); 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), and 55.6% indicated that their job was pharmacy administrator. Payers indicated moderate/most interest in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs; 85.3%) and budget impact models (BIMs; 80.4%). Overall, 51.6% of respondents claimed oncology expertise on their pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Large plans were more likely to have expertise in reviewing oncology economic models than small plans (55.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.015). The most common reasons for not reviewing economic models included "not available at time of review" (44.1%) and "potential bias" (38.2%). Overall, 43.1% of payers conduct analyses using their own data after reviewing a manufacturer-sponsored economic model. To inform formulary decisions, 62.7% of payers use BIMs and 66.7% use CEMs sometimes, often, or always. When comparing therapies with similar safety/efficacy profiles, 68.6% of payers reported economic models as helpful a moderate amount, a lot, or a great deal. Over one-third of payers (37.3%) were willing to partner with manufacturers on economic models using their plans' data. Payers valued preapproval information, data on total cost of care, and early access to models. Concerns remained regarding model transparency and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most US payers reported interest in using economic models to inform oncology formulary decision making. Opportunities exist to educate payers in assessing economic models, especially among small health plans. Ensuring model availability at launch, transparency in model assumptions, and payer-manufacturer partnership in model development may increase the utility of oncology economic models among US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and Pfizer employees led the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employed by Pfizer. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project.

Aim: HTX-011 (ZYNRELEF™) is an extended-release, dual-acting local anesthetic containing bupivacaine and meloxicam. In bunionectomy and herniorrhaphy studies, HTX-011 resulted in less postoperative pain and less opioid consumption versus bupivacaine HCl. Here we evaluate HTX-011 in patients aged ≥65 years. Materials & methods: Patients received placebo, bupivacaine HCl or HTX-011 following surgery. End points included pain intensity, total opioid consumption, opioid-free patients and safety. Results: HTX-011-treated patients reported lower postoperative pain through 72 h versus bupivacaine HCl and placebo. Elderly patients administered HTX-011 used fewer opioids versus bupivacaine HCl, and a greater proportion remained opioid-free through 72 h. HTX-011 was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to bupivacaine HCl and placebo. Conclusion: HTX-011 maintained effectiveness and was well tolerated in elderly patients. Clinical Trial registration numbers: NCT03295721 and NCT03237481

The abstracts presented in this program were originally slated to be presented at the AMCP 2020 meeting in Houston, Texas, April 21-24. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 crisis. In lieu of the scheduled poster presentations, many poster presenters have shared additional information about their research at https://plan.core-apps.com/amcp2020. Professional abstracts that have been reviewed are published in the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy’s Meeting Abstracts supplement.

BACKGROUND:The treatment of postsurgical pain with prescription opioids has been associated with persistent opioid use and increased health care utilization and costs.OBJECTIVE:To compare the health care burden between opioid-naive adult patients who were prescribed opioids after a major surgery and opioidnaive adult patients who were not prescribed opioids.METHODS:Administrative claims data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Research Databases for 2010-2016 were used. Opioid-naive adult patients who underwent major inpatient or outpatient surgery and who had at least 1 year of continuous enrollment before and after the index surgery date were eligible for inclusion. Cohorts were defined based on an opioid pharmacy claim between 7 days before index surgery and 1 year after index surgery (opioid use during surgery and inpatient use were not available). To ensure an opioid-naive population, patients with opioid claims between 365 and 8 days before surgery were excluded. Acute medical outcomes, opioid utilization, health care utilization, and costs were measured during the post-index period (index surgery hospitalization and day of index outpatient surgery not included). Predicted costs were estimated from multivariable log-linked gamma-generalized linear models.RESULTS:The final sample consisted of 1,174,905 opioid-naive patients with an inpatient surgery (73% commercial, 20% Medicare, 7% Medicaid) and 2,930,216 opioid-naive patients with an outpatient surgery (74% commercial, 23% Medicare, and 3% Medicaid). Opioid use after discharge was common among all 3 payer types but was less common among Medicare patients (63% inpatient/43% outpatient) than patients with commercial (80% inpatient/75% outpatient) or Medicaid insurance (86% inpatient/81% outpatient). Across all 3 payers, opioid users were younger, were more likely to be female, and had a higher preoperative comorbidity burden than nonopioid users. In unadjusted analyses, opioid users tended to have more hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. Adjusted predicted 1-year post-period total health care costs were significantly higher (P< 0.001) for opioid users than nonopioid users for commercial insurance (inpatient: $22,209 vs. $14,439; outpatient: $13,897 vs. $8,825), Medicare (inpatient: $31,721 vs. $26,761; outpatient: $24,529 vs. $15,225), and Medicaid (inpatient: $13,512 vs. $9,204; outpatient: $11,975 vs. $8,212).CONCLUSIONS:Filling an outpatient opioid prescription (vs. no opioid prescription) in the 1 year after inpatient or outpatient surgery was associated with increased health care utilization and costs across all payers.DISCLOSURES:Funding for this study was provided by Heron Therapeutics, which participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. Brummett is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics and Recro Pharma and reports receipt of research funding from MDHHS (Sub K Michigan Open), NIDA (Centralized Pain Opioid Non-Responsiveness R01 DA038261-05), NIH0DHHS-US-16 PAF 07628 (R01 NR017096-05), NIH-DHHS (P50 AR070600-05 CORT), NIH-DHHS-US (K23 DA038718-04), NIH-DHHS-US-16-PAF06270 (R01 HD088712-05), NIH-DHHS-US-17-PAF02680 (R01 DA042859-05), and UM Michigan Genomics Initiative and holding a patent for peripheral perineural dexmedetomidine. Oderda is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics. Pawasauskas is a paid consultant to Heron Therapeutics and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. England and Evans-Shields are employees of Heron Therapeutics. Kong, Lew, Zimmerman, and Henriques are employees of IBM Watson Health, which was compensated by Heron Therapeutics for conducting this research. Portions of this work were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2019; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

BACKGROUND:Payers often consider cost-effectiveness studies for new drugs when making decisions on coverage, formulary position, and budgets; however, cost-effectiveness studies are often calculated using estimated pricing before a drug's launch. If the drug's price changes on or after launch, or if rebate programs are initiated, cost-effectiveness studies need to be updated to prevent payers from making decisions using inaccurate value assumptions, which can lead to unexpected financial impacts and potentially delay patient access to drugs.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate how lower at-launch drug pricing versus initial estimated pricing affects cost-effectiveness ratios and potentially influences treatment decisions, using the case study of brodalumab, a biologic drug indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.METHODS:We compared the estimated cost-effectiveness of brodalumab, which was published in a December 2016 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) report based on estimated pricing, with the drug's cost-effectiveness based on its actual pricing after its approval.DISCUSSION:The 2016 ICER report on the cost-effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, brodalumab's price was estimated to be $4267 by averaging the cost of its likely competitors. Brodalumab's effectiveness as a treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis is high in clinical trials, but its estimated cost placed it as the fourth most cost-effective targeted immunomodulatory drug in the ICER report. On its approval in February 2017, brodalumab's newly estimated base price was $3900, based on its prelaunch price. Calculations using this base price placed brodalumab as the most cost-effective option among targeted immunomodulators in this setting. At the time this current article was written, brodalumab's cost was $3500, making it even more cost-effective.CONCLUSION:Because payers, providers, and patients are all concerned with achieving better outcomes for the often painful and disfiguring disease of plaque psoriasis, while controlling costs, updating cost-effectiveness data when new pricing information becomes available may reveal significant cost differences to help stakeholders make better decisions about their population's healthcare outcomes and costs.

Persistent postoperative opioid use is thought to contribute to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. However, efforts to study and address the issue have been stymied by the lack of a standard definition, which has also hampered efforts to measure the incidence of and risk factors for persistent postoperative opioid use. The objective of this systematic review is to (1) determine a clinically relevant definition of persistent postoperative opioid use, and (2) characterize its incidence and risk factors for several common surgeries. Our approach leveraged a group of international experts from the Perioperative Quality Initiative-4, a consensus-building conference that included representation from anesthesiology, surgery, and nursing. A search of the medical literature yielded 46 articles addressing persistent postoperative opioid use in adults after arthroplasty, abdominopelvic surgery, spine surgery, thoracic surgery, mastectomy, and thoracic surgery. In opioid-naïve patients, the overall incidence ranged from 2% to 6% based on moderate-level evidence. However, patients who use opioids preoperatively had an incidence of >30%. Preoperative opioid use, depression, factors associated with the diagnosis of substance use disorder, preoperative pain, and tobacco use were reported risk factors. In addition, while anxiety, sex, and psychotropic prescription are associated with persistent postoperative opioid use, these reports are based on lower level evidence. While few articles addressed the health policy or prescriber characteristics that influence persistent postoperative opioid use, efforts to modify prescriber behaviors and health system characteristics are likely to have success in reducing persistent postoperative opioid use.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are challenging, resource-intensive, and costly opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). Utilizing the Premier Healthcare Database, we identified patients > 18 years old, who underwent at least one surgical procedure of interest (i.e., cardiothoracic/vascular, general/colorectal, obstetric/gynecologic, orthopedic, or urologic), and received at least one dose of intravenous morphine, hydromorphone, or fentanyl for acute postoperative pain. The incidence of OIRD and PONV using ICD-9 codes, factors influencing these AEs, length of stay (LOS) and related costs were analyzed. Among 592,127 inpatient stays, rates of respiratory depression ranged from 3% (obstetric/gynecologic) to 17% (cardiothoracic/vascular) and nausea/vomiting from 44% (obstetric/gynecologic) to 72% (general/colorectal). Increased odds of OIRD were associated with older age (cardiothoracic/vascular, general/colorectal, obstetric/gynecologic); obesity, respiratory conditions, and sleep apnea (all surgery groups); opioid dose (cardiothoracic/vascular, general/colorectal, orthopedic); and sedative use after day 1. Increased odds of PONV were associated with younger age, female sex, and major disease severity. When respiratory depression or nausea/vomiting was present versus absent, LOS was significantly longer, and hospital costs were higher. In this analysis, OIRD and PONV were more prevalent than previously reported, were associated with identifiable risk factors, and had substantial effects on resource utilization and costs.

BACKGROUND: Discarding unused drugs after dose changes or discontinuation can significantly affect pharmacy budgets. This is especially concerning for expensive oncology agents. However, few economic studies account for drug wastage, providing an inaccurate estimate of a drug's actual economic cost, cost-effectiveness, and value. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the economic impact of drug wastage between ribociclib and palbociclib-clinically similar oral medications for metastatic breast cancer-using 3 approaches (Markov model, pharmacy acquisition cost model, and a retrospective claims analysis) and (b) compare the modeling results with a published estimate of drug wastage for palbociclib from a claims analysis. METHODS: A Markov model and a pharmacy acquisitions cost model were developed to evaluate the economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib over a 1-year time period. Data inputs were pharmacy costs (RED BOOK wholesale acquisition cost) and proportion of patients experiencing dose reductions from either ribociclib randomized clinical trials (MONALEESA-2, -3, or -7) or real-world observational data (Symphony Health retrospective claims analysis). The latter constituted the third approach for quantifying drug wastage. The economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib in postmenopausal women with previously untreated HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer was assessed. Drug wastage was defined as drug doses that could not be used by a patient following a dose reduction. The cost of drug wastage was defined as the cost associated with an unused drug resulting from a dose reduction. The predicted results from the 2 models were compared with a previously published claims analysis that estimated the effect of treatment costs and drug wastage for palbociclib based on the observed dosing patterns from the Symphony Health Solutions database. RESULTS: In the Markov model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib users experienced drug wastage of $112,382 total, or $1,124 per treated patient, per year due to dose changes. In the pharmacy acquisition cost model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib usage was associated with an increased cost of $7,196 per patient per year (based on a mid-cycle dose reduction) comprising dosing-based cost differences and drug wastage cost for palbociclib of $3,727. The previously published claims analysis found that palbociclib users experiencing a dose reduction had drug wastage costs of $5,471 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In both models, dose reductions for ribociclib patients resulted in no wastage, since unused tablets could be administered in subsequent cycles, while dose reductions for palbociclib resulted in drug wastage and increased costs. The results from both models were consistent with previously published results from the claims analysis, demonstrating drug wastage costs for palbociclib. Copyright (C) 2019, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved.

New melanoma therapies have shifted the expectations of patients and providers. Evaluating the impact of treatment characteristics may enhance shared decision making. A survey, including a discrete choice experiment, was utilized to evaluate perceived trade-offs of different melanoma treatments and to estimate out-of-pocket (OOP) willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (January 2016 to March 2016). Participants included patients with melanoma at Huntsman Cancer Institute and their cancer care providers. Stakeholder focus groups were conducted to identify treatment attributes. Descriptive and comparative statistics and multinomial logit model were used to evaluate responses. Response rates were 41.9% (N = 220) for patients and 37.7% (N = 20) for providers. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy attributes considered important by participants were overall survival, immunotherapy-related side effects, and skin toxicities. Patients and providers had significantly different views of quality-of-life expectations, anxiety toward melanoma, trust to make treatment decisions, sharing concerns about treatment, time to discuss treatment, understanding OOP costs, and willingness to undergo/recommend treatment (half of the patients would undergo treatment if it was effective for > 24 months). Among patients, the average monthly OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab was $ 2357 and for BRAF/MEK inhibitor was $1648. Among providers, these estimates were $ 2484 and $1350, respectively. Discordance existed between patients' and providers' perceptions about quality of life expectations, degree of anxiety, sharing of opinions, and progression-free survival. Our study suggests that patients and providers exhibit a higher OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy treatment compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, influenced predominately by overall survival expectations.

BACKGROUND Preapproval information exchange (PIE) is the communication of clinical and health care economic information (HCEI) on therapies in development between U.S. population health decision makers (PHDMs) and drug manufacturers before regulatory approval. Early access to HCEI can help PHDMs plan budgets, inform formulary coverage decisions, and accelerate policy development to improve patient access to innovative health technologies. While recent FDA guidelines and proposed legislation aim to clarify definitions and execution of PIE, the level of U.S. PHDMs' awareness and preferences for early engagement with investigational therapies is unclear. OBJECTIVES To (a) assess U.S. PHDMs' current knowledge and perceptions of PIE and (b) identify their preferences for PIE, in order to shape future development of related guidelines and policy. METHODS An expert panel of 5 U.S. PHDMs representing national and regional payers from integrated health plans, pharmacy benefit management, and specialty pharmacy organizations participated in a 2-round modified Delphi process. A targeted literature review of PIE was used to develop a web-based survey administered to the panel. Survey responses were grouped by consensus, with ≥ 80% agreement or disagreement as the threshold in round 1. In round 2, content experts moderated an inperson meeting where panelists deliberated and then revoted on round 1 nonconsensus topics. RESULTS In the round 1 survey, the panelists reached consensus on 35 of 54 (65%) multiple-choice questions. In the round 2 face-to-face discussion, 19 nonconsensus questions were debated. One question was removed due to duplication, and consensus was achieved on 16 additional questions, with 2 items of nonconsensus remaining. Overall, consensus was achieved on 51 of 53 topics (96%). There was full consensus by the panelists that PIE should encompass new molecular entities and new indications of marketed therapies. Panelists completely agreed on the need for a legislative "safe harbor" for PIE. Four of five panelists reported that the value of PIE was high to PHDMs, and they expressed a strong preference for peer-to-peer conversations with manufacturers' medical or outcomes liaisons for PIE. The main topic of nonconsensus was the optimal timing of PIE. CONCLUSIONS This panel of U.S. PHDMs achieved consensus on the value of PIE to proactively budget, make informed formulary decisions, and develop pharmaceutical policy to facilitate patient access to new therapies. The PHDM panel's preferences for PIE should be considered in legislative discussions and planning for future PIE by PHDMs and manufacturers. The full contribution of PIE to improving the U.S. health system can best be realized under a safe harbor that allows U.S. PHDM and manufacturer experts to engage in robust scientific and economic discourse. Additional research and broad stakeholder engagement is needed to advance the development of formal U.S. PIE guidelines. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Brixner, Oderda, and Biskupiak are principals of Millcreek Outcomes Group, a consultancy that received funding from GSK to conduct this study. Marciniak and Woodward are employees of GSK and own stock in GSK. Seifter was employed by GSK at the time of this study. Neumann served as external health policy advisor for this study and has consulted or served on advisory boards with Merck, Bayer, Pacira, Novo Nordisk, Amgen, Abbvie, Boston Health Economics, Vertex, Precision Health Economics, the Congressional Budget Office, CEA Registry Sponsors, Axovant, Veritech, Janssen, Parateck, Avexis, GSK, Celegene, Bluebird, Roche, Sage, Sarepta, Biogen, and Ipsen. Neumann also reports grants from Amgen, Lundbeck, Gates, NPC, Alzheimer's Association, and NIH.