Healthcare system conversion to a biosimilar: Trials and tribulations.

PURPOSE: While biologic medications have transformed the care and management of millions of patients, they are a large financial strain on the healthcare system. Biosimilar medications present a great opportunity to improve care affordability. However, despite streamlined approval processes and the potential for cost savings, the acceptance and adoption of biosimilars have been slow. This descriptive report illustrates the preparation for, challenges of, and execution of an enterprise-wide biosimilar conversion within a large healthcare system. The 3 phases of biosimilar conversion utilized at our institution included selection of a biosimilar, pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee approval, and implementation. SUMMARY: When selecting a biosimilar, clinical data, medication safety, cost, institutional cost savings, payer coverage, patient assistance programs, and additional patient services should be taken into consideration to ensure patient care is not affected. Understanding and endorsement of biosimilar use by physician leadership, care managers, and pharmacists are crucial before implementation. P&T committee approval with clear delineation of the patient population (naive vs experienced), disease states, and whether the biosimilar would be the preferred medication should be obtained. Transparent communication of clear expectations to patients and coordination with the information technology (IT), contracting, and supply chain departments are necessary before the go-live date. Contracting and IT implementations should ideally take potential changes in biosimilar adoption into consideration and have enough flexibility to account for these changes. Planned evaluations of patients' experiences with the change to the biosimilar should be incorporated as part of the implementation plan. CONCLUSION: The barriers to biosimilar adoption are plentiful. Careful planning, clear communication, and coordination with all affected disciplines can ensure successful biosimilar conversion.

Effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on cost in an integrated health system specialty pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are prescribed specialty medications require close monitoring, including assessment of laboratory parameters, toxicities, and adherence. Specialty pharmacies integrated within a health system are able to access records, assess therapy, and efficiently communicate with prescribers. OBJECTIVE: To analyze interventions made by clinical pharmacists within the Cleveland Clinic Specialty Pharmacy (CCSP) regarding cost avoidance for the health care system and improvements in patient safety. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study that analyzed pharmacist interventions regarding specialty hematology/oncology medications. Interventions were measured with pharmacist documentation within the electronic health record (EHR). The primary endpoint was the cost-avoidance effect of clinical pharmacist interventions resulting from pharmacist access to the EHR. Secondary endpoints included pharmacist interventions that led to additional ancillary or supportive care, time taken to perform interventions, total interventions according to new or refill status, and total interventions performed according to insurance subtype. RESULTS: 547 interventions were identified during the study period, with a total cost avoidance of $1,508,131. The intervention with the highest overall cost savings was discontinuation of therapy ($290,091). The highest cost savings, based on intervention type, was lack of follow-up ($30,892). The medication with the highest overall cost savings was abiraterone ($273,160). Gilteritinib was associated with the highest cost saving per intervention ($28,350). The indication with the highest overall cost savings was prostate cancer ($402,601), while cutaneous T-cell lymphoma had the highest cost savings per intervention ($25,424). CONCLUSIONS: CCSP pharmacist interventions led to significant overall cost savings to the health care system. Although not measured in this study, it is reasonable to expect that decreased medication use may also translate into less financial burden for patients, as well as for pharmacy benefit managers. Access to the EHR and integration within the health care system may have facilitated the cost savings. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of escalating doses of norepinephrine or norepinephrine plus the adjunctive use of vasopressin or angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor for septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision tree analysis was performed to compare costs and outcomes associated with norepinephrine monotherapy or the two adjunctive second-line vasopressors. Short- and long-term outcomes modeled included ICU survival and lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained. Costs were modeled from a payer's perspective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/unit gained. One-way (tornado diagrams) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective therapy, and dominated both norepinephrine monotherapy and adjunctive angiotensin II by producing higher ICU survival at less cost. For the lifetime horizon, while norepinephrine monotherapy was least expensive, adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,762 / QALY gained. Although adjunctive angiotensin II produced more QALYs compared to norepinephrine monotherapy, it was dominated in the long-term evaluation by second-line vasopressin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated model robustness and medication costs were not significant drivers of model results. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin is the most cost-effective second-line vasopressor in both the short- and long-term evaluations. Vasopressor price is a minor contributor to overall cost.

Cost-effectiveness of three different strategies for the treatment of first recurrent Clostridium difficile infection diagnosed in a community setting.

OBJECTIVE: A significant portion of patients with Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) experience recurrence, and there is little consensus on its treatment. With the availability of newer agents for CDI and the added burdens of recurrent disease, a cost-effectiveness analysis may provide insight on the most efficient use of resources. DESIGN: A decision-tree analysis was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 possible treatments for patients with first CDI recurrence: oral vancomycin, fidaxomicin, or bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin. The model was performed from a payer's perspective with direct cost inputs and a timeline of 1 year. A systematic review of literature was performed to identify clinical, utility, and cost data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100,000 per QALY gained. The robustness of the model was tested using one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Vancomycin had the lowest cost ($15,692) and was associated with a QALY gain of 0.8019 years. Bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin was a dominated strategy. Fidaxomicin led to a higher QALY compared to vancomycin, at an incremental cost of $500,975 per QALY gained. Based on our WTP threshold, vancomycin alone was the most cost-effective regimen for treating the first recurrence of CDI. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model's robustness. CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin alone appears to be the most cost-effective regimen for the treatment of first recurrence of CDI. Fidaxomicin alone led to the highest QALY gained, but at a cost beyond what is considered cost-effective.

Impact of a quality-assessment dashboard on the comprehensive review of pharmacist performance.

PURPOSE: The impact of a quality-assessment dashboard and individualized pharmacist performance feedback on the adherence of order verification was evaluated. METHODS: A before-and-after study was conducted at a 1,440-bed academic medical center. Adherence of order verification was defined as orders verified according to institution-derived, medication-related guidelines and policies. Formulas were developed to assess the adherence of verified orders to dosing guidelines using patient-specific height, weight, and serum creatinine clearance values from the electronic medical record at the time of pharmacist verification. A total of 5 medications were assessed by the formulas for adherence and displayed on the dashboard: ampicillin-sulbactam, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, acyclovir, and enoxaparin. Adherence of order verification was assessed before (May 1-July 31, 2015) and after (November 1, 2015-January 31, 2016) individualized performance feedback was given based on trends identified by the quality-assessment dashboard. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the overall adherence rate postintervention (90.1% versus 91.9%, p = 0.040). Among the 34 pharmacists who participated, the percentage of pharmacists with at least 90% overall adherence increased postintervention (52.9% versus 70.6%, p = 0.103). Time to verification was similar before and after the study intervention (median, 6.0 minutes; interquartile range, 3-13 minutes). The rate of documentation for nonadherent orders increased significantly postintervention (57.1% versus 68.5%, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: The implementation of the quality-assessment dashboard, educational sessions, and individualized performance feedback significantly improved pharmacist order-verification adherence to institution-derived, medication-related guidelines and policies and the documentation rate of nonadherent orders.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Second-Line Chemotherapy Agents for Advanced Gastric Cancer.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Chemotherapy options for patients who fail first-line treatment are limited. Thus the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of six possible second-line treatment options for patients with advanced gastric cancer who have failed previous chemotherapy: irinotecan, docetaxel, paclitaxel, ramucirumab, paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, and palliative care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The model was performed from a third-party payer's perspective to compare lifetime costs and health benefits associated with studied second-line therapies. Costs included only relevant direct medical costs. The model assumed chemotherapy cycle lengths of 30 days and a maximum number of 24 cycles. Systematic review of literature was performed to identify clinical data sources and utility and cost data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. The primary outcome measure for this analysis was the ICER between different therapies, where the incremental cost was divided by the number of QALYs saved. The ICER was compared with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold that was set at $50,000/QALY gained, and an exploratory analysis using $160,000/QALY gained was also used. The model's robustness was tested by using 1-way sensitivity analyses and a 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Irinotecan had the lowest lifetime cost and was associated with a QALY gain of 0.35 year. Docetaxel, ramucirumab alone, and palliative care were dominated strategies. Paclitaxel and the combination of paclitaxel plus ramucirumab led to higher QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $86,815 and $1,056,125 per QALY gained, respectively. Based on our prespecified WTP threshold, our base case analysis demonstrated that irinotecan alone is the most cost-effective regimen, and both paclitaxel alone and the combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab were not cost-effective (ICER more than $50,000). Both 1-way sensitivity analyses and PSA demonstrated the model's robustness. PSA illustrated that paclitaxel plus ramucirumab was extremely unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold less than $400,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Irinotecan alone appears to be the most cost-effective second-line regimen for patients with gastric cancer. Paclitaxel may be cost-effective if the WTP threshold was set at $160,000/QALY gained.