How to assess pharmacogenomic tests for implementation in the NHS in England.

AIMS: Pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to target medicines more effectively towards those who will benefit and avoid use in individuals at risk of harm. Health economies are actively considering how pharmacogenomic tests can be integrated into health care systems to improve use of medicines. However, one of the barriers to effective implementation is evaluation of the evidence including clinical usefulness, cost-effectiveness, and operational requirements. We sought to develop a framework that could aid the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing. We take the view from the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: We used a literature review using EMBASE and Medline databases to identify prospective studies of pharmacogenomic testing, focusing on clinical outcomes and implementation of pharmacogenomics. Using this search, we identified key themes relating to the implementation of pharmacogenomic tests. We used a clinical advisory group with expertise in pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, formulary evaluation, and policy implementation to review data from our literature review and the interpretation of these data. With the clinical advisory group, we prioritized themes and developed a framework to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomics tests. RESULTS: Themes that emerged from review of the literature and subsequent discussion were distilled into a 10-point checklist that is proposed as a tool to aid evidence-based implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into routine clinical care within the NHS. CONCLUSION: Our 10-point checklist outlines a standardized approach that could be used to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomic tests. We propose a national approach, taking the view of the NHS in England. Using this approach could centralize commissioning of appropriate pharmacogenomic tests, reduce inequity and duplication using regional approaches, and provide a robust and evidence-based framework for adoption. Such an approach could also be applied to other health systems.

Are high-cost drug funding mechanisms fit for purpose? A retrospective study of individual funding requests in an NHS tertiary hospital.

AIMS: To report on a retrospective study of individual funding request (IFR) submissions from a large tertiary hospital and describe gaps in current mechanisms for funding of high-cost medicines in England. METHODS: Data on the number and outcome of IFR submissions submitted to commissioners between 2014/15 and 2018/19 was extracted from the electronic patient health record and a local high-cost drug database. RESULTS: In total, 230 IFRs were submitted: 112 to NHS England and 118 to a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The decline rate for IFRs was 71% for NHS England and 34% for CCGs. Lack of exceptionality was the primary reason cited for declining IFRs submitted between 2016-18 (n = 42/45; 93%). Half of the patients whose IFR was declined received treatment funded through other routes, the majority (13/23; 57%) from internal hospital budget. This was governed via a local high-cost drug panel. Positive clinical outcomes were observed in 50% (4/8) of patients who received NHS England IFR-funded treatment, 54% (19/35) who received CCG IFR-funded treatment and 91% (21/23) who were funded via other routes. CONCLUSION: The high rate of IFR decline signals inefficient use of resource expended in the IFR process. Gaps in access to high-cost medicines remain for patients with rare and refractory disease requiring urgent treatment, largely due to the demand for exceptionality from NHS commissioners. Local mechanisms address this unmet need but have limitations. An outcomes-based evaluation approach to commissioning and greater transparency of previous funding decisions by commissioners may improve efficiency and equity in the IFR system.

Pharmacogenomic alerts: Developing guidance for use by healthcare professionals.

AIMS: For diseases with a genetic cause, genomics can deliver improved diagnostics and facilitate access to targeted treatments. Drug pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics are often dependent on genetic variation underlying these processes. As pharmacogenomics comes of age, it may be the first way in which genomics is utilised at a population level. Still required is guidance and standards of how genomic information can be communicated within the health record, and how clinicians should be alerted to variation impacting the use of medicines. METHODS: The Professional Record Standards Body commissioned by NHS England developed guidance on using pharmacogenomics information in clinical practice. We conducted research with those implementing pharmacogenomics in England and internationally to produce guidance and recommendations for a systems-based approach. RESULTS: A consensus viewpoint is that systems need to be in place to ensure the safe provision of pharmacogenomics information that is curated, actionable and up-to-date. Standards should be established with respect to notification and information exchange, which could impact new or existing prescribing and these must be in keeping with routine practice. Alerting systems should contribute to safer practices. CONCLUSION: Ensuring pharmacogenetics information is available to make safer use of medicines will require a major effort, of which this guidance is a beginning. Standards are required to ensure useful genomic information within the health record can be communicated to clinicians in the right format and at the right times to be actioned successfully. A multidisciplinary group of stakeholders must be engaged in developing pharmacogenomic standards to support the most appropriate prescribing.

A novel approach to support implementation of biosimilars within a UK tertiary hospital.

Aims To assess the transfer of patients treated with originator biological therapies to biosimilar products in a large UK tertiary referral hospital reflecting practice within the National Health Service (NHS) using prospectively collected data by a hospital-based registry administered by the Biologics Steering Group (BSG). METHODS: We analysed data collected prospectively in a hospital-based registry in a large NHS tertiary referral hospital in the UK. The registry was administered by the hospital's BSG, which considered requests for patients to remain on or revert to originator products. The registry contained prospectively collected data on patients switching therapy from an originator to a biosimilar. The data included clinical circumstances or rationale for each request, whether it was granted, and the results of clinical reviews at 3-6 months. RESULTS: In a 12-month period, we identified 1299 patients who could switch to the respective biosimilar and, of these, 1196 (92%) did so. Of the 260 patients taking infliximab, 250 (96%) switched to infliximab biosimilar; of the 390 patients taking etanercept 50 mg, 298 (76%) switched to etanercept 50 mg biosimilar; and of the 649 patients taking rituximab, 648 (99%) switched to rituximab biosimilar. The BSG received 39 applications: 12 (out of 39) applications were to remain on the originator and 27 (out of 39) were to switch back to the originator. Of the applications to remain on the originator 10 (out of 12) were approved. At 3-6 month review, 2 of these approvals reported continued efficacy, 3 switched to the biosimilar, 3 switched to an alternative therapy and 2 stopped treatment. Two (out of 10) applications were not approved, both applicants reported efficacy with the biosimilar at follow up. Of the 27 applications to switch back to the originator, 16 (out of 27) applications were approved. At 3-6 months, 9 (out of 16) applicants reported regain of efficacy, 6 (out of 16) reported cessation of reported adverse effects and 1 (out of 16) switched to alternative therapy. Eight (out of 27) applications were not approved, and, at point of follow up, 50% reported efficacy with the biosimilar and 50% had switched to an alternative therapy. Three (out of 27) applications were withdrawn by the clinical team as efficacy was achieved with the biosimilar. CONCLUSION: We have set up a system within a busy NHS clinical practice to successfully switch patients to biosimilars, and established a mechanism to guide decisions on continuing with or reverting back to the originator. Such a system could be of use more broadly within the NHS and other health care systems.

Multicenter case-control study protocol of pneumonia etiology in children: Global Approach to Biological Research, Infectious diseases and Epidemics in Low-income countries (GABRIEL network).

BACKGROUND: Data on the etiologies of pneumonia among children are inadequate, especially in developing countries. The principal objective is to undertake a multicenter incident case-control study of <5-year-old children hospitalized with pneumonia in developing and emerging countries, aiming to identify the causative agents involved in pneumonia while assessing individual and microbial factors associated with the risk of severe pneumonia. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter case-control study, based on the GABRIEL network, is ongoing. Ten study sites are located in 9 countries over 3 continents: Brazil, Cambodia, China, Haiti, India, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, and Paraguay. At least 1,000 incident cases and 1,000 controls will be enrolled and matched for age and date. Cases are hospitalized children <5 years with radiologically confirmed pneumonia, and the controls are children without any features suggestive of pneumonia. Respiratory specimens are collected from all enrolled subjects to identify 19 viruses and 5 bacteria. Whole blood from pneumonia cases is being tested for 3 major bacteria. S. pneumoniae-positive specimens are serotyped. Urine samples from cases only are tested for detection of antimicrobial activity. The association between procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and pathogens is being evaluated. A discovery platform will enable pathogen identification in undiagnosed samples. DISCUSSION: This multicenter study will provide descriptive results for better understanding of pathogens responsible for pneumonia among children in developing countries. The identification of determinants related to microorganisms associated with pneumonia and its severity should facilitate treatment and prevention.

Substitution of a heparin correlation value for activated partial thromboplastin time in heparin nomograms.

PURPOSE. Use of nomograms based on the "heparin correlation value" (HCV)-a value that corresponds to measured activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and that removes the need to revise nomograms in response to a change in the aPTT reagent or coagulometer used-was evaluated as an alternative to traditional aPTT-based anticoagulation nomograms. SUMMARY. Data were collected on patients receiving heparin therapy for selected indications (thrombotic disorders, cardiac conditions, and acute coronary syndromes) during four-month periods before (n = 59) and after (n = 60) implementation of the HCV-based nomograms. The primary endpoints were the rate at which coagulation laboratory measurements were obtained at the appropriate time and the rate of appropriate dosage adjustment in response to reported laboratory values; secondary endpoints included the time to attainment of the first target anticoagulation value. After implementation of HCV-based nomograms, coagulation laboratory measurements were obtained at the appropriate time in (mean ± S.D.) 92.9% ± 12.8% of patients, compared with 80.1% ± 15.5% of patients who received aPTT-based monitoring (p < 0.0001). After implementation of HCV-based monitoring, the rate of correct heparin dosage adjustments was improved (mean ± S.D. 94.7% ± 7.8% versus 89.3% ± 14.0%, p = 0.01), and the time to attainment of the first target anticoagulation value was shorter (mean ± S.D. 16.4 ± 10.6 hours versus 21.5 ± 14.8 hours, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION. The HCV, which relates measured aPTT values to corresponding antifactor Xa concentrations, was substituted for aPTT in heparin nomograms and appeared to be a viable alternative to the aPTT.