Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 Vaccine after Recovery from Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) decreases substantially among patients who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, it is unknown how long protective immunity lasts. Current guidelines recommend vaccination of recovered patients even though data regarding vaccine effectiveness in such cases are still limited. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed electronic medical records from a large health care organization in Israel to assess reinfection rates in patients who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection before any vaccination against Covid-19. We compared reinfection rates among patients who had subsequently received the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and those who had not been vaccinated between March 1 and November 26, 2021. We used a Cox proportional-hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates to estimate the association between vaccination and reinfection after adjustment for demographic factors and coexisting illnesses. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 1 minus the hazard ratio. In a secondary analysis, we evaluated the vaccine effectiveness of one dose as compared with two doses. RESULTS: A total of 149,032 patients who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection met the eligibility criteria. Of these patients, 83,356 (56%) received subsequent vaccination during the 270-day study period. Reinfection occurred in 354 of the vaccinated patients (2.46 cases per 100,000 persons per day) and in 2168 of 65,676 unvaccinated patients (10.21 cases per 100,000 persons per day). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated at 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80 to 84) among patients who were 16 to 64 years of age and 60% (95% CI, 36 to 76) among those 65 years of age or older. No significant difference in vaccine effectiveness was found for one dose as compared with two doses. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had recovered from Covid-19, the receipt of at least one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent infection.

Nirmatrelvir Use and Severe Covid-19 Outcomes during the Omicron Surge.

BACKGROUND: The oral protease inhibitor nirmatrelvir has shown substantial efficacy in high-risk, unvaccinated patients infected with the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data regarding the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir in preventing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) outcomes from the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant are limited. METHODS: We obtained data for all members of Clalit Health Services who were 40 years of age or older at the start of the study period and were assessed as being eligible to receive nirmatrelvir therapy during the omicron surge. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates was used to estimate the association of nirmatrelvir treatment with hospitalization and death due to Covid-19, with adjustment for sociodemographic factors, coexisting conditions, and previous SARS-CoV-2 immunity status. RESULTS: A total of 109,254 patients met the eligibility criteria, of whom 3902 (4%) received nirmatrelvir during the study period. Among patients 65 years of age or older, the rate of hospitalization due to Covid-19 was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients as compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.49). The adjusted hazard ratio for death due to Covid-19 was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.82). Among patients 40 to 64 years of age, the rate of hospitalization due to Covid-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients and 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.58). The adjusted hazard ratio for death due to Covid-19 was 1.32 (95% CI, 0.16 to 10.75). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 65 years of age or older, the rates of hospitalization and death due to Covid-19 were significantly lower among those who received nirmatrelvir than among those who did not. No evidence of benefit was found in younger adults.

BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the reduced effectiveness over time of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) led to a resurgence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases in populations that had been vaccinated early. On July 30, 2021, the Israeli Ministry of Health approved the use of a third dose of BNT162b2 (booster) to cope with this resurgence. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the booster in lowering mortality due to Covid-19 is still needed. METHODS: We obtained data for all members of Clalit Health Services who were 50 years of age or older at the start of the study and had received two doses of BNT162b2 at least 5 months earlier. The mortality due to Covid-19 among participants who received the booster during the study period (booster group) was compared with that among participants who did not receive the booster (nonbooster group). A Cox proportional-hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates was used to estimate the association of booster status with death due to Covid-19, with adjustment for sociodemographic factors and coexisting conditions. RESULTS: A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day). The adjusted hazard ratio for death due to Covid-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.14; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received a booster at least 5 months after a second dose of BNT162b2 had 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 than participants who did not receive a booster.

[IMPACT OF CLINICAL PHARMACIST CONSULTATIONS ON RATE OF COMPLICATIONS, RE-HOSPITALIZATIONS AND MORTALITY IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING BARIATRIC SURGERY].

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing bariatric surgery are prone to changes in absorption, improvement in their chronic diseases and other pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic alteration which can affect continuation and the required doses of their chronic medications. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of a clinical pharmacist's consultation on the rate of complications, re-hospitalizations and mortality among patients who underwent bariatric surgery. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, results of bariatric patients who were consulted by a clinical pharmacist between the years 2013-2019 were compared with the results of a wider group of bariatric patients with chronic diseases who were recorded in the Israeli General Bariatric Registry during the same years. The intervention cohort included bariatric patients members of Clalit Health Services, who were treated at the Herzliya Medical Center and who were identified by the treating staff as complex cases requiring drug counseling. The primary outcomes measured in the study included: rates of surgical complications, re-hospitalizations, and death up to one year after surgery. RESULTS: The intervention group included 165 patients; the 12 month rate of re-hospitalization in the intervention group was 10.9% vs. 19.5% in the comparison group (p=0.005). The rate of documented postoperative complications was 2.7% vs. 3.9% (p=0.462) and mortality was null vs. 0.16%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention population was identified in advance as more complex in terms of age and background morbidity, the rate of re-hospitalization and mortality was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the general bariatric surgery population in Israel. These results demonstrate the importance of referring to a specialized clinical pharmacist around bariatric surgery for improving patient safety, especially in complex patients.

Arterial and Venous Thromboembolism in ALK-Rearrangement-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: There is scarce data regarding the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) in the molecular subtypes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate the association between Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC and thromboembolic events. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study of the Clalit Health Services database, included patients with NSCLC diagnosed between 2012 and 2019. Patients exposed to ALK-tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were defined as ALK-positive. The outcome was VTE (at any site) or ATE (stroke or myocardial infarction) 6 months prior to the diagnosis of cancer, until 5 years post-diagnosis. The cumulative incidence of VTE and ATE and hazard-ratios (HR) with 95% CIs were calculated (at 6- 12- 24 and 60-months), using death as a competing risk. Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was performed, with the Fine and Gray correction for competing risks. RESULTS: The study included 4762 patients, of which 155 (3.2%) were ALK-positive. The overall 5-year VTE incidence was 15.7% (95% CI, 14.7-16.6%). ALK-positive patients had a higher VTE risk compared to ALK-negative patients (HR 1.87 [95% CI, 1.31-2.68]) and a 12-month VTE incidence of 17.7% (13.9-22.7%) compared to 9.9% (9.1-10.9%) in ALK-negative patients. The overall 5-year ATE incidence was 7.6% [6.8-8.6%]. ALK positivity was not associated with ATE incidence (HR 1.24 [0.62-2.47]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a higher VTE risk, but not ATE risk, in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC relative to those without ALK rearrangement. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate thromboprophylaxis in ALK-positive NSCLC.

Examining the Patterns of Mpox Vaccine Uptake in a Vulnerable Population.

BACKGROUND: The current Mpox outbreak presents unique vaccination challenges in vulnerable populations. Understanding factors associated with vaccine uptake in vulnerable populations is required for a successful vaccination campaign. METHODS: This population-based cohort study was conducted in Clalit Health Services and included all individuals eligible for the Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the characteristics associated with uptake of the first vaccine dose. RESULTS: Attendance to a primary healthcare clinic in the Tel Aviv district, repeated sexually transmitted infection screening, and the recent purchase of HIV-PrEP or PDE5 inhibitors were associated with higher vaccine adherence, whereas previous nonadherence with recommended vaccines, low sociodemographic status, and history of HIV were associated with lower adherence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for proactive patient and healthcare provider-oriented educational campaigns to curb vaccine hesitancy, and may help direct resources toward underserved populations, hence increasing equality in vaccine enrollment.

Tirzepatide versus semaglutide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A value for money analysis.

AIMS: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist semaglutide and, more recently, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist showed a significant reduction in body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to establish which provides better value for money. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated the cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using high-dose tirzepatide (15 mg) versus semaglutide (2.4 mg). The body weight reductions were extracted from published results of SURMOUNT-1 and STEP 1 trials, respectively. In addition, we performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the two study populations. Drug costs were based on US GoodRx prices as of October 2022. RESULTS: Using tirzepatide resulted in a weight loss of 17.8% (95% CI: 16.3%-19.3%) compared with 12.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-13.4%) for semaglutide. The total cost of 72 weeks of tirzepatide was estimated at $17 527 compared with $22 878 for 68 weeks of semaglutide. Accordingly, the cost needed to treat per 1% of body weight reduction with tirzepatide is estimated at $985 (95% CI: $908-$1075) compared with $1845 (95% CI: $1707-$1989) with semaglutide. Scenario analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide provides better value for money than semaglutide for weight reduction.

Rate of breast biopsy referrals in female BRCA mutation carriers aged 50 years or more: a retrospective comparative study and matched analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the total biopsy and positive biopsy rates in women at high risk of breast cancer compared to the general population. METHODS: The study group consisted of 330 women with pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2 attending the dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer clinic of a tertiary medical center in Israel. Clinical, genetic, and biopsy data were retrieved from the central healthcare database and the medical files. Patients aged 50 years or older during follow-up were matched 1:10 to women in the general population referred for routine breast cancer screening at the same age, as recommended by international guidelines. The groups were compared for rate of biopsy studies performed and percentage of positive biopsy results. Matched analysis was performed to correct for confounders. RESULTS: The total biopsy rate per 1000 follow-up years was 61.7 in the study group and 22.7 in the control group (p < 0.001). The corresponding positive biopsy rates per 1000 follow-up years were 26.4 and 2.0 (p < 0.001), and the positive biopsy percentages, 42.9% and 8.7% (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Women aged 50 + years with PVs in BRCA1/2 attending a dedicated clinic have a 2.7 times higher biopsy rate per 1000 follow-up years, a 13.2 times higher positive biopsy rate per 1000 follow-up years, and a 4.9 times higher positive biopsy percentage than same-aged women in the general population.

Impact of flash glucose monitoring on glucose control and hospitalization in type 1 diabetes: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of flash continuous glucose monitoring (FCGM) on glycemic control and healthcare burden in a large real-world cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) initiating FCGM technology. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included adults (age ≥18 years) with T1D from a large Health Maintenance Organization in Israel, who initiated FCGM during 2018. Primary outcomes included change in HbA1c ≥3 months following FCGM commencement and change in rate of internal-medicine hospitalization. Additional outcomes included changes in glucose test strip purchases, diabetes related outpatient health care visits and hospitalization for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and/or severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS: The study included 3490 patients, followed for a median of 14 (inter-quartile range 11-15) months after FCGM commencement. Among 2682 patients with an HbA1c measured both at baseline and ≥3 months after FCGM initiation, average HbA1c declined from 8.1% ± 1.46% to 7.9% ± 1.31% (P < .001) at first measurement and was maintained during follow up. Specifically, in those with HbA1c ≥8%, a mean decline of 0.5% (P < .001) was observed. A clinically significant HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% was experienced by 25.5% of the patients. The rate of internal medicine hospitalization, visits to primary care, or visits to endocrine/diabetes specialists in the period following FCGM commencement vs the 6 months prior was significantly reduced (P < .001). Hospitalization for DKA and/or hypoglycemia declined as well (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: FCGM was associated with significant and durable improvement in glycemic control as well as reduced consumption of healthcare services.

Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the U.S., the addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been demonstrated to provide 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $571,000/QALY. Due to variability in pricing, value for money may be different in other countries. Our objective was to establish the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in mCRC in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and Israel. METHODS: We performed the analysis using a previously established Markov model for mCRC. Input data for efficacy, adverse events, and quality of life were considered to be generalizable and therefore identical for all countries. We used country-specific prices for medications, administration, and other health service costs. All costs were converted from local currency to U.S. dollars at the exchange rates in March 2016. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to assess the model robustness across parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: Base case results demonstrated that the highest ICER was in the U.S. ($571,000/QALY) and the lowest was in Australia ($277,000/QALY). In Canada, the U.K., and Israel, ICERs ranged between $351,000 and $358,000 per QALY. PSA demonstrated 0% likelihood of bevacizumab being cost-effective in any country at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy for mCRC consistently fails to be cost-effective in all five countries. There are large differences in cost-effectiveness between countries. This study provides a framework for analyzing the value of a cancer drug from the perspectives of multiple international payers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab varies significantly between multiple countries. By conventional thresholds, bevacizumab is not cost-effective in metastatic colon cancer in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and Israel.

The 'real-life' impact of adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a large Israeli retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: After a decade of extensive use, the actual contribution of bevacizumab in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 'real-life' outcomes of patients with mCRC before and after the introduction of bevacizumab to standard mCRC first-line practice. METHODS: Using the computerized administrative database of Clalit Health Services' (CHS), Israel's largest health care provider, we retrospectively compared two cohorts (n = 1739): (A) all CHS' patients diagnosed with mCRC between January 2000 and December 2004 that received first-line irinotecan or oxaliplatin-based combination chemotherapy (before bevacizumab was introduced) (n = 1052), and (B) all patients that started first-line irinotecan or oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy together with bevacizumab between September 2006 and December 2009 (after bevacizumab was fully reimbursed in Israel for mCRC first-line therapy) (n = 687). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were first-line progression-free survival (PFS) and metastatectomy rates. RESULTS: Median OS was longer in Cohort B than in Cohort A [23.0 months vs.15.0, adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.75]. Secondary outcomes were also better; PFS of 14.0 months vs. 9.8 in the earlier period (HR, 0.75) and metastatectomy rate of 8.1% versus 3.9%. The longer OS in Cohort B was preserved even after controlling for latter-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor use (HR = 0.77). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, OS, PFS and metastatectomy rates of first-line treatment of mCRC were significantly higher in the later period of the study. These results, derived from 'real-life' practice, suggest that the use of bevacizumab, among other alterations in the clinical management of mCRC between the two periods, might have had a significant contribution to these outcomes, and may therefore support the current practice of adding bevacizumab to first-line treatment of mCRC.

Can Consultation by a Clinical Pharmacist Prevent Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery?

The purpose of this work was to investigate the effect of clinical pharmacist consultation on the long-term morbidity and mortality outcomes among patients undergoing bariatric surgery. In this retrospective cohort study, 165 bariatric patients at Herzliya Medical Center who were identified as complex cases and were consulted by a clinical pharmacist (2013-2019) were compared with a wider group of bariatric patients with chronic diseases who were recorded in the Israeli General Bariatric Registry during the same years. The primary outcomes were rates of surgical complications, re-hospitalizations, and death up to one year after surgery. The secondary outcome was the rate of re-hospitalizations in different time periods. The twelve (12)-month rate of re-hospitalization in the intervention group was 10.9% vs. 19.5% in the comparison group (p = 0.005); the rate of documented postoperative complications was 2.7% vs. 3.9% (p = 0.462), and mortality was null vs. 0.16%, respectively. As for the secondary outcomes, the rates of re-hospitalizations in the periods of 0-30, 31-90, 91-180, and 181-365 days after surgery were 1.8% vs. 5.3% (p = 0.046), 2.4% vs. 4.1% (p = 0.278), 3.6% vs. 4.8% (p = 0.476), and 7.3% vs. 9.9% (p = 0.256) in the intervention vs. comparison cohorts, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance and benefit of referring to a specialized clinical pharmacist around bariatric surgery for improving patient safety, especially in complex patients. This is the first study to look at the long-term effects of clinical pharmacist consultation on re-hospitalization and mortality among bariatric patients, and our encouraging outcomes should hopefully stimulate more studies to show the invaluable role of specialized clinical pharmacists.

Effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir in the intended-use population: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research reported inconsistent results on the efficacy of molnupiravir in treating COVID-19. Moreover, efficacy was not assessed in the intended-use population (IUP), as defined by the FDA. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 in the IUP. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all IUP in Israel's Clalit Health Services from January 16, 2022, to February 16, 2023. The effectiveness outcome was the incidence of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19, and the safety outcome was the incidence of all-cause mortality within 35 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cox-proportional hazard models were used to analyse the data after 1:5 propensity-score matching. RESULTS: A total of 49 515 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of them, 3957 molnupiravir-treated patients were matched to 19 785 untreated patients. In molnupiravir-treated patients, 70 out of 3957 (5.1 per 10 000 person per day) experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization or death, compared with 699 out of 19 785 untreated patients (10.4 per 10 000 person per day); RR: 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39-0.64). All-cause mortality was also lower in the treated group, with 41 out of 3957 (3.0 per 10 000 person per day) experiencing mortality compared with 414 out of 19 785 untreated patients (6.1 per 10 000 person per day); RR: 0.50 (0.36-0.68). DISCUSSION: In a real-world cohort of IUP, molnupiravir therapy was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalizations or deaths due to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.

Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists' and family physicians' attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions.

OBJECTIVES: We determined how Israeli oncologists and family physicians value life-prolongation versus quality-of-life (QOL)-enhancing outcomes attributable to cancer and congestive heart failure interventions. METHODS: We presented physicians with two scenarios involving a hypothetical patient with metastatic cancer expected to survive 12 months with current treatment. In a life-prolongation scenario, we suggested that a new treatment increases survival at an incremental cost of $50,000 over the standard of care. Participants were asked what minimum improvement in median survival the new therapy would need to provide for them to recommend it over the standard of care. In the QOL-enhancing scenario, we asked the maximum willingness to pay for an intervention that leads to the same survival as the standard treatment, but increases patient's QOL from 50 to 75 (on a 0-100 scale). We replicated these scenarios by substituting a patient with congestive heart failure instead of metastatic cancer. We derived the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained threshold implied by each response. RESULTS: In the life-prolongation scenario, the cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by oncologists were $150,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY for cancer and CHF, respectively. Cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by family physicians were $50,000/QALY regardless of the disease type. Willingness to pay for the QOL-enhancing scenarios was $60,000/QALY and did not differ by physicians' specialty or disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that family physicians value life-prolonging and QOL-enhancing interventions roughly equally, while oncologists value interventions that extend survival more highly than those that improve only QOL. These findings may have important implications for coverage and reimbursement decisions of new technologies.

Liraglutide versus semaglutide for weight reduction-a cost needed to treat analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists liraglutide and, more recently, semaglutide have demonstrated a significant reduction in body weight. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. METHODS: The cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using semaglutide or liraglutide was calculated. The body weight reductions were extracted from the published STEP 1 trial and the SCALE trial results, respectively. A scenario analysis was performed to mitigate the primary differences between the two studies' populations. Drug costs were based on US GoodRx prices as of October 2022. RESULTS: Liraglutide in STEP 1 resulted in a weight loss of 5.4% (95% CI: 5%-5.8%). Semaglutide in SCALE resulted in a weight loss of 12.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-13.4%). The total cost of therapy with liraglutide during the trial was estimated at $17,585 compared with $22,878 with semaglutide. Accordingly, the cost needed to treat per 1% of body weight reduction with liraglutide is estimated at $3256 (95% CI: $3032-$3517) compared with $1845 (95% CI: $1707-$1989) with semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide provides significantly better value for money than liraglutide for weight reduction.