RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There have been significant advances in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) treatment, with the introduction of Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) modulators. Adherence is an important goal for CF management, as nonadherence is linked to poor health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the medication adherence in patients taking CFTR modulators using a national specialty pharmacy database. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study utilized de-identified specialty pharmacy data from September 2017 to August 2018 to assess medication adherence for three CFTR modulators: ivacaftor, lumacaftor/ivacaftor, and tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor. The primary outcome was proportion of days covered (PDC) for each medication, with mean PDC values compared across age groups and insurance characteristics. All analyses were performed using the SAS 9.4 University Edition (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: A total of 2,548 patients were analyzed, including 1,289 (50.59%) patients on lumacaftor/ivacaftor, 784 (30.77%) on ivacaftor, and 475 (18.64%) on tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor. The mean PDC value for all CFTR modulators was above 0.80. Tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor had the highest overall PDC of 0.92, while PDC values for both lumacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor were 0.84. Children/adolescents on lumacaftor/ivacaftor (p = 0.0001) and tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor (p = 0.001) had significantly higher mean PDC values compared to adults but not for ivacaftor (p = 0.3744). No statistical differences were seen in PDC across insurance characteristics. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the adherence of three CFTR modulators using a large nationwide specialty database. With high acquisition costs of CFTR modulator therapies, there is a need to improve rates of adherence in patients with CF.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a strategy to facilitate patient-centered care and is increasingly important in oncology, where patients are faced with complicated treatment decisions that require them to weigh efficacy and safety, quality of life, and cost. Understanding the contributors to the use of SDM may provide insight to its further implementation. Therefore, the objective of the study was to examine the patient-related barriers/facilitators to SDM in oncology care. METHODS: A systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was executed. A search strategy composed of cancer, decision-making, and patient-centered terms was conducted utilizing PubMed, EBSCO MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases between January 2007 and November 2017. Full-text, US-based, English language articles describing the patient perspective of SDM in oncology care were included. Relevant data from articles were reviewed in a qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: From 3435 potential citations, a total of 35 articles were included. The most common cancers studied were breast (n = 22; 62.9%) and prostate (n = 9; 25.7%). The identified themes for barriers to SDM were uncertainty in the treatment decision, concern regarding adverse effects, and poor physician communication. Themes for facilitators for SDM included physician consideration of patient preferences, positive physician actions and behaviors, and use or encouragement of support systems. CONCLUSION: As SDM gains use within oncology practice, understanding key influences will allow for more effective implementation of strategies to increase patient engagement and improve care and value in the treatment process.