Identifying Factors Associated With Disparities in Access to Integrative Oncology Program.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer centers are increasingly providing complementary medicine as part of an emerging discipline termed 'integrative oncology' (IO). The present study explored factors associated with disparities in referral and adherence to a freely-provided IO program. METHODS: The databases of three oncology centers in northern Israel were searched retrospectively for chemotherapy-treated oncology patients eligible for referral by their oncology healthcare professionals to an integrative physician (IP) consultation. Demographic and cancer-related variables associated with the referral, and attendance by patients at the consultation were identified, as was adherence to the 6-week IO treatment program (high adherence, attending ≥4 IO treatment sessions; low adherence, 0-3 sessions). RESULTS: Of 4988 eligible patients, 1694 (34%) were referred to the IP consultation, with 1331 (78.6%) attending the consultation of which 766 (57.6%) were adherent to IO treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed lower referral rates among patients speaking primarily Arabic and Russian vs. Hebrew (OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 2.0-4.6, P < 0.0001); males vs. females (OR = 1.94, CI = 1.3-2.9, P = 0.001); those not reporting emotional distress (OR = 1.5, CI = 1.02-2.16, P = 0.037); and older age (OR = 1.04, CI = 1.03-1.06, P < 0.0001). Arabic and Russian-speaking patients were less likely to adhere to IO treatments (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.32-0.83, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Patients' ethno-national origin and immigration status (primary language, Arabic and Russian), male gender and older age were associated with lower rates of referral to and attendance of the IP consultation, with reduced adherence to weekly IO treatments. These findings require further study to identify barriers toward diversity, equity and inclusion in IO care, increasing awareness among healthcare professionals regarding the benefits of these services for improving patient wellbeing.

Prospective Risk Assessment of Medicine Shortages in Europe and Israel: Findings and Implications.

INTRODUCTION: While medicine shortages are complex, their mitigation is more of a challenge. Prospective risk assessment as a means to mitigate possible shortages, has yet to be applied equally across healthcare settings. The aims of this study have been to: 1) gain insight into risk-prevention against possible medicine shortages among healthcare experts; 2) review existing strategies for minimizing patient-health risks through applied risk assessment; and 3) learn from experiences related to application in practice. METHODOLOGY: A semi-structured questionnaire focusing on medicine shortages was distributed electronically to members of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action 15105 (28 member countries) and to hospital pharmacists of the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) (including associated healthcare professionals). Their answers were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis (Microsoft Office Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics®) with descriptive statistics based on the distribution of responses. Their proportional difference was tested by the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test for independence. Differences in the observed ordinal variables were tested by the Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test. The qualitative data were tabulated and recombined with the quantitative data to observe, uncover and interpret meanings and patterns. RESULTS: The participants (61.7%) are aware of the use of risk assessment procedures as a coping strategy for medicine shortages, and named the particular risk assessment procedure they are familiar with failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) (26.4%), root cause analysis (RCA) (23.5%), the healthcare FMEA (HFMEA) (14.7%), and the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) (14.7%). Only 29.4% report risk assessment as integrated into mitigation strategy protocols. Risk assessment is typically conducted within multidisciplinary teams (35.3%). Whereas 14.7% participants were aware of legislation stipulating risk assessment implementation in shortages, 88.2% claimed not to have reported their findings to their respective official institutions. 85.3% consider risk assessment a useful mitigation strategy. CONCLUSION: The study indicates a lack of systematically organized tools used to prospectively analyze clinical as well as operationalized risk stemming from medicine shortages in healthcare. There is also a lack of legal instruments and sufficient data confirming the necessity and usefulness of risk assessment in mitigating medicine shortages in Europe.

A Phamacoeconomic Analysis of Personalized Dosing vs Fixed Dosing of Pembrolizumab in Firstline PD-L1-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Background: In October 2016, pembrolizumab became the new standard of care for firstline treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors express programmed death ligand 1 in at least 50% of cells. The US Food and Drug Administration-recommended dose is 200 mg every three weeks. Multiple studies have demonstrated equivalent efficacy with weight-based doses between 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. The objective of this study was to compare the economic impact of using personalized dosing (2 mg/kg) vs fixed dosing (200 mg) in the firstline setting of mNSCLC. Methods: We performed a budget impact analysis from the US societal perspective to compare fixed dosing with personalized dosing. We calculated the target population and weight of patients who would be treated with pembrolizumab annually in the firstline setting. Using survival curves from the KEYNOTE 024 trial with Weibull extrapolation, we estimated the mean number of cycles that patients would receive. Using the Medicare average sales price, we calculated the difference in cost between personalized and fixed dosing. Results: Our base case model demonstrates that the total annual cost of pembrolizumab with fixed dosing is US $3 440 127 429, and with personalized dosing it is US $2 614 496 846. The use of personalized dosing would lead to a 24.0% annual savings of US $825 630 583 in the United States. Conclusions: Personalized dosing of pembrolizumab may have the potential to save approximately $0.825 billion annually in the United States, likely without impacting outcomes. This option should be considered for the firstline management of PD-L1-positive advanced lung cancer.