Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch Syndrome and Polygenic Risk Scores to inform Colorectal Cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic screening to identify individuals with Lynch Syndrome (LS) and those with a high polygenic risk score (PRS) promises to personalize Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening. Understanding its clinical and economic impact is needed to inform screening guidelines and reimbursement policies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate individuals over a lifetime. We compared LS+PRS genomic screening to standard of care (SOC) for a cohort of US adults at age 30. The Markov model included health states of "no CRC", CRC stages (A-D) and death. We estimated incidence, mortality, and discounted economic outcomes of the population under different interventions. RESULTS: Screening 1000 individuals for LS+PRS resulted in 1.36 fewer CRC cases and 0.65 fewer deaths compared to SOC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $124,415 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); screening had a 69% probability of being cost-effective using a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Setting the PRS threshold at the 90th percentile of the LS+PRS screening program to define individuals at high risk was most likely to be cost-effective compared to 95th, 85th, and 80th percentiles. CONCLUSION: Population-level LS+PRS screening is marginally cost-effective and a threshold of 90th percentile is more likely to be cost-effective than other thresholds.

Does Real Option Value Influence Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations? A Survey of US Oncologists.

OBJECTIVES: Survival benefit from anticancer treatments, even if modest, improves a patient's chances of accessing future innovations, thereby creating real option value. There is no empirical evidence on the impact of potential future innovations on oncologists' treatment recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey of practicing medical and hematological oncologists. We presented a hypothetical metastatic cancer patient with median survival of 6 months under 4 decision-making scenarios with varying expected efficacy and time to arrival of future innovations. We assessed the likelihood of discussing future innovations with their patients and the likelihood that future innovations would influence their current treatment recommendation, as well as factors associated with these 2 outcomes using multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: A total of 201 oncologists completed the survey. When future innovations were expected to improve survival by 6 months and be available in 6 months, 76% of oncologists were likely or very likely to discuss the innovations with their patients, and 68% reported they would influence their current treatment recommendations. A 1-month increase in the expected survival improvement of future innovation was associated with a 1.17 greater odds (95% CI 1.1-1.25) of reporting likely or very likely to discuss future innovations with their patients, whereas a 1-month increase in the expected time to arrival was associated with a 0.91 lower odds (95% CI 0.88-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Given that potential future innovations seem to influence oncologists' treatments recommendations, evidence to inform clinical guidelines and value assessments should consider data on real option value impacts to support informed treatment decision making.

Development of stakeholder-informed recommendations for inclusion of family spillover effects in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: The impacts of disease and treatment on a patient's family members and informal caregivers are known as "family spillover effects." Although many formal value frameworks call for the consideration of these effects, they are often not included in health technology assessments (HTAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). A formal evaluation of stakeholder perspectives may help address the disconnect for inclusion of family spillover effects observed in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop stakeholder-driven recommendations for the measurement and use of family spillover effects in the United States and to identify research opportunities. METHODS: We first conducted a targeted literature review of US-based CEAs and HTA reports from the past 10 years to assess the current use of family spillover effects. We then used a purposeful sampling technique to conduct 25 qualitative interviews with outcomes researchers, patient advocates, health economists, and health policy and payer experts to gather perspectives on when and how family spillover effects should be considered in HTA processes. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes and develop preliminary recommendations. Finally, we conducted an online workshop with 8 stakeholders to discuss, rate, and refine preliminary recommendations to develop final recommendations. RESULTS: A key theme identified in the stakeholder interviews was the role that data availability, analyst preferences, and prior precedence play in limiting the inclusion of spillover effects in HTAs. Additional themes included support for the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative spillover effects and the need to capture broad and diverse impacts across populations. We developed 15 recommendations from the consensus building workshop addressing measurement, CEA modeling, and HTA processes. Key recommendations included (1) a transparent process for deciding when family spillover effects should be included, (2) measurement of direct and indirect costs with priority based on the magnitude of impact, (3) the use of validated measures, (4) the use of proxy information and expert elicitation when quality data are unavailable, and (5) the use of a modified impact inventory table for transparency of included effects. Research opportunities included patient involvement in family spillover effect research and HTAs, mapping algorithms and non-preference-based caregiver measures to generate utilities, and consensus best practices for modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistent inclusion of family spillover effects in HTAs and CEAs remains a persistent challenge. The stakeholder-driven recommendations and research opportunities identified in this study may help improve the transparency, measurement, and use of family spillover effects in assessing the clinical and economic value of novel medical technologies.

Productivity loss by cancer stage in patients newly diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma: A claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: New cancer diagnoses are associated with employment decrease, workplace absenteeism, and attributable costs to employers. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the workplace productivity loss in the year following a new diagnosis of early-, intermediate-, or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in commercially insured US adults. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Merative MarketScan commercial claims to identify incident HCC diagnoses from 2010 to 2020. Patients were stratified into early-, intermediate-, or advanced-stage cohorts based on presence of secondary malignancy codes or first treatment received. Mean workdays lost and attributable cost in the year following a new diagnosis were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier sample averages to account for censoring. An exploratory analysis was conducted on subgroups in the early and advanced cohorts to assess productivity loss in patients with and without treatment. RESULTS: Mean workdays lost in the year following a new HCC diagnosis among the early, intermediate, and advanced cohorts was 22.6 days (95% CI = 16.0-29.8), 17.4 days (95% CI = 11.9-23.2), and 19.5 days (95% CI = 15.6-23.6), respectively. Corresponding indirect costs were $6,031(95% CI = $4,270-$7,953), $4,644 (95% CI = $3,176-$6,192), and $5,204 (95% CI = $4,163-$6,298). Early-stage patients without a liver transplant and advanced-stage patients who received systemic therapy had 19.7 (95% CI = 12.7-27.4) and 22.0 (95% CI = 16.6-27.7) mean workdays lost, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity loss varies by stage and appears to be higher in early-stage patients who receive more intensive treatments in the first year following a new HCC diagnosis.

Risk perception and intended behavior change after uninformative genetic results for adult-onset hereditary conditions in unselected patients.

Population genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions may improve disease management and morbidity but most individuals will receive uninformative results that do not indicate higher risk for disease. Investigation into subsequent psychosocial health and behaviors is necessary to inform population screening feasibility, effectiveness, and cost considerations. We conducted a prospective survey study of unselected University of Washington Medicine patients enrolled in a genetic research study screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes. Survey questions adapted from the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) questionnaire and designed to understand perceived disease risk change and planned health behaviors were administered after receipt of results. Overall, 2761 people received uninformative results and 1352 (49%) completed survey items. Respondents averaged 41 years old, 62% were female, and 56% were Non-Hispanic Asian. Results from the FACToR instrument showed mean (SD) scores of 0.92 (1.34), 7.63 (3.95), 1.65 (2.23), and 0.77 (1.50) for negative emotions, positive emotions, uncertainty, and privacy concerns, respectively, suggesting minimal psychosocial harms from genetic screening. Overall, 12.2% and 9.6% of survey respondents believed that their risk of cancer or heart disease, respectively, had changed after receiving their uninformative genetic screening results. Further, 8.5% of respondents planned to make healthcare changes and 9.1% other behavior changes. Future work is needed to assess observed behavior changes attributable to uninformative screening results and if small changes in behavior among this population have large downstream impacts.

Budget impact of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adults at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing can identify cancer risk early, enabling prevention and early detection. We describe use of risk management interventions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study. CHARM assessed risk and provided genetic testing to low income, low literacy, and other underserved populations that historically face barriers to accessing cancer genetic services. METHODS: CHARM was implemented in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Denver Health (DH) between 2018 and 2020. We identified post-testing screening (mammography, breast MRI, colonoscopy) and surgical (mastectomy, oophorectomy) procedures using electronic health records. We examined utilization in participants who did and did not receive actionable risk management recommendations from study genetic counselors following national guidelines. RESULTS: CHARM participants were followed for an average of 15.4 months (range: 0.4-27.8 months) after results disclosure. Less than 2% (11/680) received actionable risk management recommendations (i.e., could be completed in the initial years following testing) based on their test result. Among those who received actionable recommendations, risk management utilization was moderate (54.5%, 6/11 completed any procedure) and varied by procedure (mammogram: 0/3; MRI: 2/4; colonoscopy: 4/5; mastectomy: 1/5; oophorectomy: 0/3). Cancer screening and surgery procedures were rare in participants without actionable recommendations. CONCLUSION: Though the number of participants who received actionable risk management recommendations was small, our results suggest that implementing CHARM's risk assessment and testing model increased access to evidence-based genetic services and provided opportunities for patients to engage in recommended preventive care, without encouraging risk management overuse.

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

Population Genomic Screening for Three Common Hereditary Conditions : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. population for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 genomic conditions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). DESIGN: Decision analytic Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Separate age-based cohorts (ages 20 to 60 years at time of screening) of racially and ethnically representative U.S. adults. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care payer. INTERVENTION: Population genomic screening using clinical sequencing with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes, cascade testing of first-degree relatives, and recommended preventive interventions for identified probands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cases; incident cardiovascular events; quality-adjusted survival; and costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Screening 100 000 unselected 30-year-olds resulted in 101 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 77 to 127) fewer overall cancer cases and 15 (95% UI, 4 to 28) fewer cardiovascular events and an increase of 495 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% UI, 401 to 757) at an incremental cost of $33.9 million (95% UI, $27.0 million to $41.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68 600 per QALY gained (95% UI, $41 800 to $88 900). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old cohorts was cost-effective in 99%, 88%, and 19% of probabilistic simulations, respectively, at a $100 000-per-QALY threshold. The test costs at which screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds reached the $100 000-per-QALY threshold were $413, $290, and $166, respectively. Variant prevalence and adherence to preventive interventions were also highly influential parameters. LIMITATIONS: Population averages for model inputs, which were derived predominantly from European populations, vary across ancestries and health care environments. CONCLUSION: Population genomic screening with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes associated with 3 CDC Tier 1 conditions is likely to be cost-effective in U.S. adults younger than 40 years if the testing cost is relatively low and probands have access to preventive interventions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Human Genome Research Institute.

Exploring Providers' Perception to Naloxone Education for Opioid Overdose After Receiving Academic Detailing at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Introduction: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in partnership with the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) Program, implemented the National Academic Detailing Service to deliver naloxone education to providers with patients at-risk for opioid-related overdose. Methods: We administered a 26-item online survey to VA providers to explore their perceptions about prescribing naloxone for opioid overdose emergencies and their experience with academic detailing between August 2017 and April 2018. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics to (1) explore their current perceptions of naloxone prescribing and their experience with academic detailing, (2) identify differences across provider types [primary care providers (PCP), specialists, and others], and (3) assess perceived naloxone prescribing behavior change after an academic detailing visit. Results: Providers (N = 137) indicated that they were practicing at a level that was consistent with VA goals to promote take-home naloxone to reverse opioid-related overdose events. Average domain scores were similar across PCP, specialist, and other provider types. Specialists reported a higher average attitude domain score (+.56, P = .011) and perceived barriers domain score (+.82, P = .009) than PCPs. Most providers agreed that they prescribed naloxone more frequently due to academic detailing (53%) and indicated that they synthesized information from the academic detailer to change their naloxone prescribing practice (60%). Discussion: VA providers' perceptions of take-home naloxone were aligned with current evidence-based practice. Moreover, providers reported increasing their naloxone prescribing and synthesizing OEND-related information after an academic detailing interaction. Understanding providers' perceptions can be used to improve and enhance the academic detailing program's effectiveness.

Key drivers of family-level utility of pediatric genomic sequencing: a qualitative analysis to support preference research.

Given that pediatric genomic sequencing (GS) may have implications for the health and well-being of both the child and family, a clearer understanding of the key drivers of the utility of GS from the family perspective is needed. The purpose of this study is to explore what is important to caregivers of pediatric patients regarding clinical GS, with a focus on family-level considerations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers (n = 41) of pediatric patients who had been recommended for or completed GS that explored the scope of factors caregivers considered when deciding whether to pursue GS for their child. We analyzed the qualitative data in multiple rounds of coding using thematic analysis. Caregivers raised important family-level considerations, in addition to those specifically for their child, which included wanting the best chance at good quality of life for the family, the ability to learn about family health, the impact on the caregiver's well-being, privacy concerns among family members, and the cost of testing to the family. We developed a framework of key drivers of utility consisting of four domains that influenced caregivers' decision making: underlying values, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and other pragmatic considerations regarding GS. These findings can inform measurement approaches that better capture the utility of pediatric GS for families and improve assessments of the value of clinical GS.

Residual Disease Burden After Neoadjuvant Therapy Among US Patients With High-Risk HER2-positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Population Effectiveness Model.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of patients with high-risk HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) do not have pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. The residual burden of disease among this population has not been previously quantified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used decision-modeling techniques to simulate recurrence, progression from locoregional to distant cancer, breast cancer-related mortality, and mortality from other causes over a 10-year period in a hypothetical cohort. We derived progression probabilities primarily from the KATHERINE trial of T-DM1 (ado-trastuzumab emtansine) and mortality outcomes from the published literature. Modeled outcomes included recurrences, breast cancer deaths, deaths from other causes, direct medical costs, and costs due to lost productivity. To estimate the residual disease burden, we compared outcomes from a cohort of patients treated with T-DM1 versus a hypothetical cohort with no disease recurrence. RESULTS: We estimated that 9,300 people would experience incident high-risk HER2-positive ESBC in the United States in 2021 based on cancer surveillance databases, clinical trial data, and expert opinion. We estimated that, in this group, 2,118 would experience disease recurrence, including 1,576 distant recurrences, and 1,358 would experience breast cancer deaths. This residual disease burden resulted in 6,435 life-years lost versus the recurrence-free cohort, and healthcare-related costs totaling $644 million, primarily associated with treating distant cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients with HER2-positive ESBC who do not achieve pCR after neoadjuvant therapy are at ongoing risk of recurrence despite the effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment. There is substantial clinical and economic value in further reducing the residual disease burden in this population.

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Population genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in unselected individuals can prevent premature cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of population-wide FH genomic screening versus no genomic screening. METHODS: We developed a decision tree plus 10-state Markov model evaluating the identification of patients with an FH variant, statin treatment status, LDL-C levels, MI, and stroke to compare the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness of population-wide FH genomic screening. FH variant prevalence (0.4%) was estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode). Genomic test costs were assumed to be $200. Age and sex-based estimates of MI, recurrent MI, stroke, and recurrent stroke were obtained from Framingham risk equations. Additional outcomes independently associated with FH variants were derived from a retrospective analysis of 26,025 participants screened for FH. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. RESULTS: FH screening was most effective at younger ages; screening unselected 20-year-olds lead to 111 QALYs gained per 100,000 individuals screened at an incremental cost of $20 M. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for 20-year-olds was $181,000 per QALY, and there was a 38% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. If genomic testing cost falls to $100, the ICER would be $91,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Population FH screening is not cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds. However, reducing test costs, testing at younger ages, or including FH within broader multiplex screening panels may improve clinical and economic value.

Cost-effectiveness frameworks for comparing genome and exome sequencing versus conventional diagnostic pathways: A scoping review and recommended methods.

PURPOSE: Methodological challenges have limited economic evaluations of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES). Our objective was to develop conceptual frameworks for model-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of diagnostic GS/ES. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of economic analyses to develop and iterate with experts a set of conceptual CEA frameworks for GS/ES for prenatal testing, early diagnosis in pediatrics, diagnosis of delayed-onset disorders in pediatrics, genetic testing in cancer, screening of newborns, and general population screening. RESULTS: Reflecting on 57 studies meeting inclusion criteria, we recommend the following considerations for each clinical scenario. For prenatal testing, performing comparative analyses of costs of ES strategies and postpartum care, as well as genetic diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. For early diagnosis in pediatrics, modeling quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs over ≥20 years for rapid turnaround GS/ES. For hereditary cancer syndrome testing, modeling cumulative costs and QALYs for the individual tested and first/second/third-degree relatives. For tumor profiling, not restricting to treatment uptake or response and including QALYs and costs of downstream outcomes. For screening, modeling lifetime costs and QALYs and considering consequences of low penetrance and GS/ES reanalysis. CONCLUSION: Our frameworks can guide the design of model-based CEAs and ultimately foster robust evidence for the economic value of GS/ES.

Impact of a Population Genomic Screening Program on Health Behaviors Related to Familial Hypercholesterolemia Risk Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding clinician and participant behaviors after disclosure of genomic risk variants for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) from a population genomic screening program. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of MyCode participants with an FH risk variant beginning 2 years before disclosure until January 16, 2019. We analyzed lipid-lowering prescriptions (clinician behavior), medication adherence (participant behavior), and LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol levels (health outcome impact) pre- and post-disclosure. Data were collected from electronic health records and claims. RESULTS: The cohort included 96 participants of mean age 57 (22-90) years with median follow-up of 14 (range, 3-39) months. Most (90%) had a hypercholesterolemia diagnosis but no specific FH diagnosis before disclosure; 29% had an FH diagnosis post-disclosure. After disclosure, clinicians made 36 prescription changes in 38% of participants, mostly in participants who did not achieve LDL cholesterol goals pre-disclosure (81%). However, clinicians wrote prescriptions for fewer participants post-disclosure (71/96, 74.0%) compared with pre-disclosure (81/96, 84.4%); side effects were documented for most discontinued prescriptions (23/25, 92%). Among the 16 participants with claims data, medication adherence improved (proportion of days covered pre-disclosure of 70% [SD, 24.7%] to post-disclosure of 79.1% [SD, 27.3%]; P=0.05). Among the 52 (54%) participants with LDL cholesterol values both before and after disclosure, average LDL cholesterol decreased from 147 to 132 mg/dL (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Despite disclosure of an FH risk variant, nonprescribing and nonadherence to lipid-lowering therapy remained high. However, when clinicians intensified medication regimens and participants adhered to medications, lipid levels decreased.

Risk-reducing surgery in unaffected individuals receiving cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing enables primary cancer prevention, including through prophylactic surgery. We examined risk-reducing surgeries in unaffected individuals tested for hereditary cancer susceptibly between 2010 and 2018 in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health system. METHODS: We used an internal genetic testing database to create a cohort of individuals who received tests including one or more high-penetrance hereditary cancer susceptibility gene. We then identified, after testing, bilateral mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and total hysterectomy procedures in electronic health record and claims data through 2019. We describe surgery utilization by genetic test results and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: The cohort included 1020 individuals, 16% with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in one or more of the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, APC, MUTYH, ATM, MSH2, PALB2, BRIP1, MLH1, MSH6, EPCAM, FLCN, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53. Among individuals with P/LP variants making them candidates for mastectomy, BSO, or hysterectomy per NCCN guidelines, 34% (33/97), 24% (23/94), and 8% (1/12), respectively, underwent surgery during follow-up. Fifty-three percent (18/37) of hysterectomies were among APC, BRCA1, and BRCA2 P/LP variant heterozygotes, typically concurrent with BSO. Three individuals with variants of uncertain significance (only) and 22 with negative results had prophylactic surgery after genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of risk-reducing surgery following usual care genetic testing appears to be lower than in studies that actively recruit high-risk patients and provide testing and follow-up care in specialized settings. Factors in addition to genetic test results and NCCN guidelines motivate prophylactic surgery use and deserve further study.

Prescribing Alzheimer's Disease treatments by provider type and geographic region: a comparison among physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

BACKGROUND: The estimated increase in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) caseload may present a logistical challenge to the US healthcare system. While nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are increasingly delivering primary care to patients with chronic diseases, the nature of their prescribing of AD medications is largely unknown. The primary objective of this study was to compare the prescribing of AD medications across provider types (physician, NP, and PA) and geographic regions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using IBM MarketScan® commercial and Medicare supplemental claims to examine unique AD prescriptions prescribed between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Parallel analysis of prescriptions for another geriatric condition, osteoporosis (OP), was also conducted for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 103,067 AD prescriptions and 131,773 OP prescriptions were included in analyses. Physicians prescribed most AD prescriptions (95.65%), followed by NPs (3.37%) and PAs (0.98%). Small differences were identified among individual AD medications prescribed by physicians compared to NP/PAs. NPs/PAs prescribed a significantly higher proportion of AD prescriptions in rural as compared to urban areas (z = 0.023, 95%CI [0.018, 0.028]). CONCLUSION: Minimal variation exists in AD prescribing among physicians, NPs, and PAs, but NPs/PAs prescribe more AD prescriptions in rural areas. NPs/PAs, especially in rural areas, may play critical roles in alleviating projected workforce constraints. Further research assessing AD care, health outcomes, and costs by provider type and region is necessary to better guide healthcare workforce planning for AD care.