Panel Interview of ONcology practices with Emergent Experience of teclistamab in the Real world: The TecPIONEER Study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand providers' current teclistamab step-up dosing (SUD) model and how they envision future administration models, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators to these models in day-to-day clinical practice. METHODS: Interviews of clinicians with RW experience administering teclistamab, with a subsequent roundtable discussion to discuss interview findings. Topics of interest included managing adverse events (AE), and handling logistics of SUD and transition of care (ToC). RESULTS: 20 clinicians representing 19 practices participated. Of 14 practices administering inpatient teclistamab SUD, 12 (86%) utilized a single admission. A day 1-3-5 dosing schedule with a 7-day length of stay was planned in 10/14 (71%). The remaining 5 practices employed outpatient or hybrid SUD. SUD models depended on cellular therapy experience, patient volume, and monitoring capabilities. Clinicians desired to administer SUD outpatient for convenience and reduced healthcare resource use. 11% of practices reported using tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis, whilst it was uniformly used to treat grade 2+ CRS. Corticosteroids were the preferred treatment for neurotoxicity. Infection prophylaxis with intravenous immunoglobulin was reported by 89% of practices. Patient- and institution-level factors affected decision-making of transitioning patients back to referring sites after SUD. CONCLUSION: The results consolidated practice-based experiences and indicated diverse RW SUD models and patient management strategies in practices with familiarity with teclistamab AE management and ToC protocols. Inpatient SUD is common, with expectations that approaches will evolve toward outpatient or community-based administration. Further research is needed to investigate outcomes of different care models and AE management strategies.

Multiple myeloma is a blood cancer that forms in plasma cells. Teclistamab is a new treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who have received prior treatment but for whom their multiple myeloma has come back or stopped responding to treatment multiple times. Because teclistamab works differently than other existing multiple myeloma treatments, there is a need to understand how oncologists who have experience with teclistamab are managing their patients in order to inform best practices for use by more healthcare providers. We interviewed oncologists that treat patients with multiple myeloma to understand their experiences with teclistamab, including how they manage initial dosing (step-up dosing) processes, treat adverse events, and transition patients to outpatient or external clinics for continued care. Most practices were administering step-up dosing of teclistamab in an inpatient setting soon after teclistamab became a treatment option, with a high level of desire to move the initial dosing to an outpatient setting in the near future. Those that were already administering step-up dosing in an outpatient setting had models unique to their practice. Oncologists described numerous processes for monitoring and managing adverse events of the treatment, including treating patients with preventative medications and regularly monitoring vital signs throughout step-up dosing. Oncologists expected that their teclistamab administration processes will likely evolve over time as they gain more familiarity with the treatment, and will need to consider patient-level factors to administer step-up dosing in an outpatient setting.

The Role of Pharmaceutical Innovation in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Diseases.

Background: Over the last 25 years, clinical practice guidelines have emerged as a means to standardize and improve care. As pharmaceutical innovations develop, guidelines are updated to incorporate new interventions. However, the extent to which pharmacotherapies are represented as treatment options in guideline recommendations has not been well elucidated. This study aimed to quantify the role pharmacotherapy has played in clinical practice guidelines across a range of chronic diseases over the past 20 years. Methods: Clinical practice guidelines published from 2000 to 2021 were identified for five chronic diseases: ischemic heart disease (IHD), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Guidelines were reviewed and data on treatment recommendations were collected, including the type of intervention, line of therapy, and, for pharmacotherapies, year of regulatory approval and year of inclusion in guidelines. Results: In total, 92 clinical practice guidelines were reviewed. Among the 184 discrete recommended interventions across the five disease areas, 146 (79.3%) were pharmacotherapies, 21 (11.4%) were behavioral modifications, 6 (3.3%) were surgical interventions, and 11 (6%) were other interventions. Across guidelines, when a line of therapy was specified, behavioral modifications and pharmacotherapies were most frequently recommended as first-line interventions, whereas surgical interventions were more often recommended for subsequent lines of treatment. The time from regulatory approval of novel pharmacotherapies to inclusion in guideline recommendations varied considerably by disease area and geography. Conclusions: Across the reviewed disease areas, behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapies are shown to be critical components of clinical practice. Over the last 20 years, novel pharmaceutical innovations have been incorporated into clinical practice guideline recommendations; however, with varying speeds of adoption. Given the increasing pace of pharmacologic innovation, timely updates of clinical practice guidelines are critical to evolving the standard of care and practicing evidence-based medicine.

Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: The patient perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) have improved overall survival (OS) in some mBC subtypes; however, there remains no cure for mBC. Considering the use of progression-free survival (PFS) and other surrogate endpoints in clinical trials, we must understand patient perspectives on measures used to assess treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To explore global patient perceptions of the concept of PFS and its potential relation to quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual roundtables in Europe and the United States and interviews in Japan with breast cancer patients, patient advocates, and thought leaders. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Lengthened OS combined with no worsening or improvement in QoL remain the most important endpoints for mBC patients. Time when the disease is not progressing is meaningful to patients when coupled with improvements in QoL and no added treatment toxicity. Clinical terminology such as "PFS" is not well understood, and participants underscored the need for patient-friendly terminology to better illustrate the concept. Facets of care that patients with mBC value and that may be related to PFS include relief from cancer-related symptoms and treatment-related toxicities as well as the ability to pursue personal goals. Improved communication between patients and providers on managing treatment-related toxicities and addressing psychosocial challenges to maintain desired QoL is needed. CONCLUSION: While OS and QoL are considered the most relevant endpoints, patients also value periods of time without disease progression. Incorporation of these considerations into the design and conduct of future clinical trials in mBC, as well as HTA and reimbursement decision-making, is needed to better capture the potential value of a therapeutic innovation.

Management of Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in an Evolving Treatment Landscape: A Qualitative Study of Provider Perspectives of First-Line Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment landscape in locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has evolved with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first line (1L) and platinum-refractory settings and with the recent approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients achieving disease control with platinum-containing regimens. Oncology provider perspectives and decision-making processes regarding aUC management, especially with the integration of recently approved strategies, such as maintenance therapy, have not been well-described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Qualitative interview study with US oncologists and oncology nurses in academic and community settings in August 2020. Interviews explored decision-making around aUC 1L treatment eligibility determinants and selection, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing practices, and use of maintenance therapy. Thematic analysis was used to identify drivers of 1L treatment decisions. RESULTS: Eighteen oncologists (women, 11%; >15 years in practice, 55%; academic, 39%) and 18 oncology nurses (women, 94%; >15 years in practice, 34%; academic, 50%) participated. Providers preferred platinum-based regimens in 1L setting and reserved 1L ICI monotherapy for frail patients. Providers preferred chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance ICI, as opposed to concurrent combination chemotherapy and ICI, followed by ICI as continuation maintenance. Decision-making was driven by need to adhere to treatment decision-making guidelines, characteristics of the patient, treatment efficacy and patient preference. CONCLUSION: Providers adhered to guidelines and level I evidence in decision-making in the aUC 1L setting. Future studies should further evaluate barriers to the adoption of standard-of-care strategies and factors impacting decision-making in the real-world setting.

Schizophrenia population health management: perspectives of and lessons learned from population health decision makers.

BACKGROUND: Despite therapeutic advances for patients with schizophrenia, improving patient outcomes and reducing the cost of care continue to challenge formulary decision makers. OBJECTIVES: To (1) understand the perspectives of formulary decision makers on challenges to optimal schizophrenia population management and (2) identify best practices and recommendations for mitigating these challenges. METHODS: This mixed-methods study, conducted in a double-blind manner, comprised in-depth telephone interviews with formulary decision makers from February through May 2020, and a web-based follow-on survey that was sent to all participants in October 2020. US-based formulary decision makers were recruited if they were directly involved in schizophrenia drug formulary or coverage decision making for national or regional payers, health systems, or behavioral health centers. Formulary decision makers' perceptions of challenges, policies, and programs related to schizophrenia population health management were assessed generally and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 19 formulary decision makers participated in the interviews and 18 (95%) completed the survey. Participants reported a spectrum of patient- and payer-driven challenges in schizophrenia population health management, including medication nonadherence, high pharmacy and medical costs, and frequent hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Participants noted that COVID-19 had worsened all identified challenges, although patient unemployment (mean score of 2.00 on a scale of 1 [made much worse] to 5 [made much better]) and reduced access to psychiatric care (mean score, 2.12) were most negatively affected. The most common strategies implemented in order to improve schizophrenia population health management included case management (89%), telemedicine (83%), care coordination programs (72%), strategies to mitigate barriers to accessing medication (61%), and providing nonmedical services to address social determinants of health (56%). Participants noted that, ideally, all treatments for schizophrenia would be available on their formularies without utilization management policies in place in order to increase accessibility to medication, but cost to the health plans made that difficult. Whereas 61% of respondents believed that long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) were currently underused in their organizations, only 28% represented organizations with open access policies for LAIs. Participants believed that among patients with schizophrenia, LAIs were most beneficial for those with a history of poor or uncertain adherence to oral medications (mean score of 4.50 on a scale of 1 [not at all beneficial] to 5 [extremely beneficial]) and those with recurring emergency department visits and inpatient stays (mean score, 3.94). Study participants reported slightly increased use of LAIs (mean score of 3.17 on a scale of 1 [negatively impacted] to 5 [positively impacted]) among their patients with schizophrenia in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; 29% of participants reported easing access restrictions for LAIs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants described persisting challenges and various approaches intended to improve schizophrenia population health management. They also recommended strategies to optimize future health management for this population, including expanding programs to address social determinants of health and mitigating barriers to accessing treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Roach, Graf, Pednekar, and Chou are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received financial support from Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, to conduct this study. Chou owns equity in Precision Medicine Group, the parent company of PRECISIONheor. Lin and Benson are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Doshi has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or both, for Acadia, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Sage Therapeutics and has received research funding from AbbVie, Biogen, Humana, Janssen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, PhRMA, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant.

Adoption of Digital Health Technologies in the Practice of Behavioral Health: Qualitative Case Study of Glucose Monitoring Technology.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of patients with serious mental illness (SMI) relies largely on patient or caregiver self-reported symptoms. New digital technologies are being developed to better quantify the longitudinal symptomology of patients with SMI and facilitate disease management. However, as these new technologies become more widely available, psychiatrists may be uncertain about how to integrate them into daily practice. To better understand how digital tools might be integrated into the treatment of patients with SMI, this study examines a case study of a successful technology adoption by physicians: endocrinologists' adoption of digital glucometers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the key facilitators of and barriers to clinician and patient adoption of digital glucose monitoring technologies to identify lessons that may be applicable across other chronic diseases, including SMIs. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with practicing endocrinologists from 2 large metropolitan areas using a semistructured discussion guide designed to elicit perspectives of and experiences with technology adoption. The thematic analysis identified barriers to and facilitators of integrating digital glucometers into clinical practice. Participants also provided recommendations for integrating digital health technologies into clinical practice more broadly. RESULTS: A total of 10 endocrinologists were enrolled: 60% (6/10) male; a mean of 18.4 years in practice (SD 5.6); and 80% (8/10) working in a group practice setting. Participants stated that digital glucometers represented a significant change in the treatment paradigm for diabetes care and facilitated more effective care delivery and patient engagement. Barriers to the adoption of digital glucometers included lack of coverage, provider reimbursement, and data management support, as well as patient heterogeneity. Participant recommendations to increase the use of digital health technologies included expanding reimbursement for clinician time, streamlining data management processes, and customizing the technologies to patient needs. CONCLUSIONS: Digital glucose monitoring technologies have facilitated more effective, individualized care delivery and have improved patient engagement and health outcomes. However, key challenges faced by the endocrinologists included lack of reimbursement for clinician time and nonstandardized data management across devices. Key recommendations that may be relevant for other diseases include improved data analytics to quickly and accurately synthesize data for patient care management, streamlined software, and standardized metrics.

Challenges and opportunities in insomnia disorder.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia disorder is a prevalent, often unrecognized condition that affects millions. This clinical disorder is characterized by difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep over a sustained period. In fact, insomnia disorder affects much more than sleep; it increases the risk of developing serious medical and psychiatric comorbidities and can exacerbate existing conditions. The association between insomnia disorder and serious medical and psychiatric comorbidities are complex and directionality is not yet fully understood. There remain gaps in the treatment landscape for insomnia disorder. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the published literature to identify challenges, unmet needs, and burden associated with insomnia disorder. RESULTS: In this article, we describe the substantial burden that insomnia disorder poses on patients, the healthcare system, and society in the US. This article explores the factors attributable to this burden including limited provider knowledge, inadequate treatment options, and unknown long-term impacts of off-label treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Several recommendations are proposed to address these challenges and improve patient outcomes through efforts to: (1) establish the societal value of treatment; (2) improve the clinical understanding of insomnia disorder; and (3) prioritize development of and access to effective treatments that do not pose addiction potential or tolerability issues.

Incremental Health Care Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression Among Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Payers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared health care use and costs among patients with treatment-resistant versus treatment-responsive depression across Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using Truven Health Analytics' commercial (2006-2017; N=111,544), Medicaid (2007-2017; N=24,036), and Medicare supplemental (2006-2017; N=8,889) claims databases. Participants were adults with major depressive disorder who had received one or more antidepressant treatments. Treatment resistance was defined as failure of two or more antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Annual use (hospitalizations and outpatient and emergency department [ED] visits) and costs were compared across patients by treatment-resistant status in each payer population. Incremental burden of treatment-resistant depression was estimated with regression analyses. Monthly changes in costs during 1-year follow-up were assessed to understand differential cost trends by treatment-resistant status. RESULTS: In the three payer populations, patients with treatment-resistant depression incurred higher health care utilization than those with treatment-responsive depression (hospitalization, odds ratios [ORs]=1.32-1.76; ED visits, ORs=1.38-1.45; outpatient visits, incident rate ratio=1.29-1.54; p<0.001 for all). Compared with those with treatment-responsive depression, those with treatment resistance incurred higher annual costs (from $4,093 to $8,054 higher; p<0.001). Patients with treatment-resistant depression had higher costs at baseline compared with patients with treatment-responsive depression and incurred higher costs each month throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-resistant depression imposes a significant health care burden on insurers. Treatment-resistant depression may exist and affect health care burden before a patient is identified as having treatment-resistant depression. Findings underscore the need for effective and timely treatment of treatment-resistant depression.