Strategies For Clinical Implementation: Precision Oncology At Three Distinct Institutions.

Despite rapid advances in molecular diagnostics and targeted therapeutics, the adoption of precision medicine into clinical oncology workflows has been slow. Questions about clinical utility, inconsistent reimbursement for molecular diagnostics, and limited access to targeted therapies are some of the major hurdles that have hampered clinical adoption. Despite these challenges, providers have invested in precision medicine programs in an ongoing search for innovative care models to deliver improved patient outcomes and achieve economic gains. We describe the precision oncology medicine programs implemented by an integrated delivery system, a community care center, and an academic medical center, to demonstrate the approaches and challenges associated with clinical implementation efforts designed to advance this treatment paradigm. Payer policies that include coverage for broad genomic testing panels would support the broader application of precision medicine, deepen research benefits, and bring targeted therapies to more patients with advanced cancer.

An Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Comprehensive MTM Integrated with Point-of-Care Phenotypic and Genetic Testing for U.S. Elderly Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Poor health outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients is an area of concern among policymakers and administrators. In an effort to determine the best strategy to improve outcomes among elderly patients who underwent PCI, several studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with universal use of any one of the antiplatelet drugs indicated for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent PCI. The results have either been in favor of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy or universal use of ticagrelor. However, no study has yet evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-provided face-to-face medication therapy management (MTM) combined with point-of-care genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy (POCP) when compared with universal use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel for the elderly after PCI. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist integration of MTM with POCP (MTM-POCP) when compared with universal use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel combined with MTM (MTM-ticagrelor or MTM-clopidogrel). METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the U.S. health care system. A hybrid model, consisting of a 1-year decision tree and a 20-year Markov model, was used to simulate a cohort of elderly patients (aged at least 65 years) with ACS who underwent PCI. Treatment strategies available to patients were POCP, POCP-MTM, MTM-clopidogrel, or MTM-ticagrelor. Data used to populate the model were obtained from the PLATO trial and other published studies. Outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for the joint uncertainty around the key parameters of the model. Finally, a benchmark willingness to pay of $50,000-200,000 was considered. RESULTS: The use of PCOP (with dual antiplatelet therapy) resulted in 5.29 QALYs, at a cost of $50,207. MTM-clopidogrel resulted in 5.34 QALYs, at a cost of $50,011. The use of POCP-MTM resulted in 5.36 QALYs, at a cost of $50,270. Finally, MTM-ticagrelor resulted in 5.42 QALYs, at a cost of $53,346. MTM-ticagrelor was found to be cost-effective compared with MTM-clopidogrel or MTM-POCP, irrespective of the willingness to pay. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MTM-ticagrelor was cost-effective when compared with MTM-POCP or MTM-clopidogrel. The transitional probabilities, however, were mostly based on published studies. Analysis based on a prospective randomized clinical study, comparing all the treatment strategies included in this study, is warranted to confirm our findings. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Study concept and design were contributed by Okere and Diaby. Ezendu took the lead in data collection, along with Okere. Data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Okere, Diaby, and Berthe and revised by Okere and Diaby.

Advances in ovarian cancer therapy.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage. Current state-of-the-art surgery and chemotherapy result in the high incidence of complete remissions; however, the recurrence rate is also high. For most patients, the disease eventually becomes a continuum of symptom-free periods and recurrence episodes. Different targeted treatment approaches and biological drugs, currently under development, bring the promise of turning ovarian cancer into a manageable chronic disease. In this review, we discuss the current standard in the therapy for ovarian cancer, major recent studies on the new variants of conventional therapies, and new therapeutic approaches, recently approved and/or in clinical trials. The latter include anti-angiogenic therapies, polyADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, inhibitors of growth factor signaling, or folate receptor inhibitors, as well as several immunotherapeutic approaches. We also discuss cost-effectiveness of some novel therapies and the issue of better selection of patients for personalized treatment.

Innovation, productivity, and pricing: Capturing value from precision medicine technology in Canada.

For new technology and innovation such as precision medicine to become part of the solution for the fiscal sustainability of Canadian Medicare, decision-makers need to change how services are priced rather than trying to restrain emerging technologies like precision medicine for short-term cost savings. If provincial public payers shift their thinking to be public purchasers, value considerations would direct reform of the reimbursement system to have prices that adjust with technologically driven productivity gains. This strategic shift in thinking is necessary if Canadians are to benefit from the promised benefits of innovations like precision medicine.

Barriers preventing the adoption of comprehensive cancer genomic profiling in the clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive cancer genomic profiling provides the opportunity to expose the various molecular aberrations potentially driving tumor progression. Consequently, the identity of these genetic drivers can be utilized to match a patient to the most appropriate targeted therapy, thereby increasing the probability of improved clinical outcome. Despite its capability of informing patient care, the adoption of comprehensive cancer genomic profiling in the clinic has not been widespread. The barriers surrounding its universal acceptance are attributed to both physician and patient perspectives. Areas covered: The following report discusses the various obstacles in place, including those related to clinical utility, education, insurance coverage, and clinical trials, which can deter physicians and patients from utilizing genomic profiling for therapeutic decision-making. Expert commentary: The authors review the recent growth and potential of clinical utility studies over the last two years, provide a suggestive framework for educational support, and comment on the use of social media to enhance clinical trial recruitment.

Payer Coverage for Hereditary Cancer Panels: Barriers, Opportunities, and Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative.

Background: Hereditary cancer panels (HCPs), testing for multiple genes and syndromes, are rapidly transforming cancer risk assessment but are controversial and lack formal insurance coverage. We aimed to identify payers' perspectives on barriers to HCP coverage and opportunities to address them. Comprehensive cancer risk assessment is highly relevant to the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and payers' considerations could inform PMI's efforts. We describe our findings and discuss them in the context of PMI priorities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 major US payers, covering >160 million lives. We used the framework approach of qualitative research to design, conduct, and analyze interviews, and used simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: Barriers to HCP coverage included poor fit with coverage frameworks (100%); insufficient evidence (100%); departure from pedigree/family history-based testing toward genetic screening (91%); lacking rigor in the HCP hybrid research/clinical setting (82%); and patient transparency and involvement concerns (82%). Addressing barriers requires refining HCP-indicated populations (82%); developing evidence of actionability (82%) and pathogenicity/penetrance (64%); creating infrastructure and standards for informing and recontacting patients (45%); separating research from clinical use in the hybrid clinical-research setting (44%); and adjusting coverage frameworks (18%). Conclusions: Leveraging opportunities suggested by payers to address HCP coverage barriers is essential to ensure patients' access to evolving HCPs. Our findings inform 3 areas of the PMI: addressing insurance coverage to secure access to future PMI discoveries; incorporating payers' evidentiary requirements into PMI's research agenda; and leveraging payers' recommendations and experience to keep patients informed and involved.

Current Status of Companion and Complementary Diagnostics: Strategic Considerations for Development and Launch.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved diagnostic assays play an increasingly common role in managing patients to prolong lifespan while also enhancing quality of life. Diagnostic assays can be essential for the safe and effective use of therapeutics (companion diagnostic), or may inform on improving the benefit/risk ratio without restricting drug access (complementary diagnostic). This tutorial reviews strategic considerations for drug and assay development resulting in FDA-approved companion or complementary diagnostic status.

A Retrospective Analysis of Precision Medicine Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Cancer Reveals Improved Progression-Free Survival Without Increased Health Care Costs.

PURPOSE: The advent of genomic diagnostic technologies such as next-generation sequencing has recently enabled the use of genomic information to guide targeted treatment in patients with cancer, an approach known as precision medicine. However, clinical outcomes, including survival and the cost of health care associated with precision cancer medicine, have been challenging to measure and remain largely unreported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study of 72 patients with metastatic cancer of diverse subtypes in the setting of a large, integrated health care delivery system. We analyzed the outcomes of 36 patients who received genomic testing and targeted therapy (precision cancer medicine) between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015, compared with 36 historical control patients who received standard chemotherapy (n = 29) or best supportive care (n = 7). RESULTS: The average progression-free survival was 22.9 weeks for the precision medicine group and 12.0 weeks for the control group ( P = .002) with a hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.75) when matching on age, sex, histologic diagnosis, and previous lines of treatment. In a subset analysis of patients who received all care within the Intermountain Healthcare system (n = 44), per patient charges per week were $4,665 in the precision treatment group and $5,000 in the control group ( P = .126). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that precision cancer medicine may improve survival for patients with refractory cancer without increasing health care costs. Although the results of this study warrant further validation, this precision medicine approach may be a viable option for patients with advanced cancer.

From big data analysis to personalized medicine for all: challenges and opportunities.

Recent advances in high-throughput technologies have led to the emergence of systems biology as a holistic science to achieve more precise modeling of complex diseases. Many predict the emergence of personalized medicine in the near future. We are, however, moving from two-tiered health systems to a two-tiered personalized medicine. Omics facilities are restricted to affluent regions, and personalized medicine is likely to widen the growing gap in health systems between high and low-income countries. This is mirrored by an increasing lag between our ability to generate and analyze big data. Several bottlenecks slow-down the transition from conventional to personalized medicine: generation of cost-effective high-throughput data; hybrid education and multidisciplinary teams; data storage and processing; data integration and interpretation; and individual and global economic relevance. This review provides an update of important developments in the analysis of big data and forward strategies to accelerate the global transition to personalized medicine.

The paradox of non-evidence based, publicly funded complementary alternative medicine in the English National Health Service: An explanation.

Despite the unproven effectiveness of many practices that are under the umbrella term 'complementary alternative medicine' (CAM), there is provision of CAM within the English National Health Service (NHS). Moreover, although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was established to promote scientifically validated medicine in the NHS, the paradox of publicly funded, non-evidence based CAM can be explained as linked with government policy of patient choice and specifically patient treatment choice. Patient choice is useful in the political and policy discourse as it is open to different interpretations and can be justified by policy-makers who rely on the traditional NHS values of equity and universality. Treatment choice finds expression in the policy of personalised healthcare linked with patient responsibilisation which finds resonance in the emphasis CAM places on self-care and self-management. More importantly, however, policy-makers also use patient choice and treatment choice as a policy initiative with the objective of encouraging destabilisation of the entrenched healthcare institutions and practices considered resistant to change. This political strategy of system reform has the unintended, paradoxical consequence of allowing for the emergence of non-evidence based, publicly funded CAM in the NHS. The political and policy discourse of patient choice thus trumps evidence based medicine, with patients that demand access to CAM becoming the unwitting beneficiaries.

[Challenges of an integrative and personalised health care for health economics and the insurance system]. / Herausforderungen einer integrativen und personalisierten Gesundheitsversorgung für die Gesundheitsökonomie und das Versicherungssystem.

OBJECTIVES: "Stratifying medicine" is a topic of increasing importance in the public health system. There are several questions related to "stratifying medicine". This paper reconsiders definitions, opportunities and risks related to "stratifying medicine" as well as the main challenges of "stratifying medicine" from the perspective of a public health insurance. DEFINITION: The application of the term and the definition are important points to discuss. Terms such as "stratified medicine", "personalised medicine" or "individualised medicine" are used. The Techniker Krankenkasse prefers "stratifying medicine", because it usually means a medicine that tailors therapy to specific groups of patients by biomarkers. OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS: "Stratifying medicine" is associated with various hopes, e. g., the avoidance of ineffective therapies and early detection of diseases. But "stratifying medicine" also carries risks, such as an increase in the number of cases by treatment of disease risks, a duty for health and the weakening of the criteria of evidence-based medicine. CHALLENGES: The complexity of "stratifying medicine" is a big challenge for all involved parties in the health system. A lot of interrelations are still not completely understood. So the statutory health insurance faces the challenge of making innovative therapy concepts accessible in a timely manner to all insured on the one hand but on the other hand also to protect the community from harmful therapies. Information and advice to patients related to "stratifying medicine" is of particular importance. The equitable distribution of fees for diagnosis and counselling presents a particular challenge. The solidarity principle of public health insurance may be challenged by social and ethical issues of "stratifying medicine". CONCLUSION: "Stratifying medicine" offers great potential to improve medical care. However, false hopes must be avoided. Providers and payers should measure chances and risks of "stratifying medicine" together for the welfare of the patients.

Implementation of genomic medicine in a health care delivery system: a value proposition?

The United States health care system is undergoing significant change and is seeking innovations in care delivery and reimbursement models that will lead to improved value for patients, providers, payers, and employers. Genomic medicine has the potential to be a disruptive innovation that if implemented intelligently can improve value. The article presents the perspective of the leaders of a large integrated healthcare delivery system regarding the decision to invest in implementation of genomic medicine.

Early phase clinical trials in pediatric hematology and oncology.

Pediatric oncology is an unrivaled success story in the recent history of medicine. This success is mostly based on a persistent refinement of evidence based therapeutic concepts. With that regard physicians and their staff are highly experience in the conduct of prospective evidence based trials and are therefore competent partners for the pharmaceutical industry. In times of personalized medicine the individual target population is diminishing and the borders of indications are not more disease based. A situation that requires new concepts from the industry. Therefore children with cancer could benefit early from the current developments as well as the pharmaceutical industry could benefit from the legislative incentives through highly recruiting and well conducted prospective trials. Pivotal is a functional platform of communication in order to maintain a close dialogue between academia and pharmaceutical companies.