The implementation of value-based frameworks, clinical care pathways, and alternative payment models for cancer care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is a significant driver of rising health care costs in the United States, where the annual cost of cancer care is estimated to reach $246 billion in 2030. As a result, cancer centers are considering moving away from fee-for-service models and transitioning to value-based care models, including value-based frameworks (VBFs), clinical care pathways (CCPs), and alternative payment models (APMs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers and motivations for using value-based care models from the perspectives of physicians and quality officers (QOs) at US cancer centers. METHODS: Sites were recruited from cancer centers in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions in a 15/15/20/10 relative distribution. Cancer centers were identified based on prior research relationships and known participation in the Oncology Care Model or other APMs. Based on a literature search, multiple choice and open-ended questions were developed for the survey. A link to the survey was emailed to hematologists/oncologists and QOs at academic and community cancer centers from August to November 2020. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 136 sites were contacted; 28 (21%) centers returned completed surveys, which were included in the final analysis. 45 surveys (23 from community centers, 22 from academic centers) were completed: 59% (26/44), 76% (34/45), and 67% (30/45) of physicians/QOs respondents had used or implemented a VBF, CCP, and APM, respectively. The top motivator for VBF use was "producing real-world data for providers, payers, and patients" (50% [13/26]). Among those not using CCPs, the most common barrier was a "lack of consensus on pathway choices" (64% [7/11]). For APMs, the most common difficulty was that "innovations in health care services and therapies must be adopted at the site's own financial risk" (27% [8/30]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to measure improvements in cancer health outcomes was a large motivator for implementing value-based models. However, heterogeneity in practice size, limited resources, and potential increase in costs were possible barriers to implementation. Payers need to be willing to negotiate with cancer centers and providers to implement the payment model that will most benefit patients. The future integration of VBFs, CCPs, and APMs will depend on reducing the complexity and burden of implementation. DISCLOSURES :Dr Panchal was affiliated with the University of Utah at the time this study was conducted and discloses current employment with ZS. Dr McBride discloses employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Huggar and Dr Copher report employment, stock, and other ownership interests in Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Bristol Myers Squibb to the University of Utah.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of five anti-obesity medications from a US payer's perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of anti-obesity medications (AOM): tirzepatide, semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine plus topiramate (PpT), and naltrexone plus bupropion (NpB). METHODS AND RESULTS: From a U.S. perspective we developed a Markov model to simulate weight change over a 40-year time horizon using results from clinical studies. According to the body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and mortality risk were the health states considered in the model, being mutually exclusive. Costs of AOM, adverse events, cardiovascular events, and diabetes were included. We applied a 3% per-year discount rate and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters. A deterministic analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the model. The model included a cohort of 78.2% females with a mean age of 45 years and BMI of 37.1 (SD 4.9) for females and 36.8 (SD 4.9) for males. NpB and PpT were the least costly medications and, all medications differed no more than 0.5 QALYs. Tirzepatide ICER was $355,616 per QALY. Liraglutide and semaglutide options were dominated by PpT. CONCLUSION: Compared to other AOM, PpT was lowest cost treatment with nearly identical QALYs with other agents.

Cancer incidence in immunocompromised patients: a single-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diminished immune defense plays an important role in cancer development. Cancer risk in immunocompromised patients may differ. Identifying individuals with elevated cancer risk can inform strategies for routine cancer screening. This study aimed to understand and compare cancer incidence and risk in three patient groups: recipients of solid organ transplant (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT); diagnosis of primary or secondary immunodeficiency disorder (PID/SID); and recipients of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-i) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the University of Utah Health System database and Huntsman Cancer Institute tumor registry. Patients aged ≥18 years with SOT/HSCT, PID/SID or ≥ 3 months of TNF-i therapy were included. The date of transplant, diagnosis of PID/SID, or 1st TNF-i medication order date was defined as the index date. We calculated cumulative cancer incidence by Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox-proportional hazard regression model with a stepwise variable selection process was used to identify independent risk factors associated with the time to onset of a new primary cancer. RESULTS: In total, 13,887 patients were included which comprised of 2982 (21%) SOT/HSCT, 7542 (54%) PID/SID and 3363 (24%) patients receiving TNF-i. The mean (SD) age ranged from 46.8 (15) years - 50.4 (18.2) years. The proportion of white patients ranged from 72.3-84.8%. The estimated cumulative cancer incidence was 11.5% in the SOT/HSCT cohort, 14.3% in the PID/SID cohort, and 8.8% in the TNF-i cohort. The multivariable model adjusted for age, benign in-situ disease, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hypertension/cardiovascular disease/end stage renal disease, gender, race/ethnicity, and renal cyst as significant risk factors. The adjusted hazard ratios for cancer development in SOT/HSCT and PID/SID cohorts compared to the TNF-i cohort over the full follow-up period were 1.57 (95% CI: 1.16-2.13) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.65-2.77), respectively. CONCLUSION: A significantly increased risk of cancer was observed in PID/SID patients and SOT/HSCT patients compared to TNF-i patients. Age ≥ 50 years, male gender, and clinical comorbidities were additional factors impacting cancer risk. PID/SID and SOT/HSCT patients may benefit from more intensive cancer screening.

Risk of Bleeding Among Individuals on Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants: An Academic Medical Center Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Previous research has identified risk factors that may affect the risk of bleeding when individuals are exposed to oral anticoagulants. It is unclear if the risk continues to exist with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of bleeding in patients on DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and betrixaban) based on known risk factors including demographics, medical conditions, and concomitant medications. This study was a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from the University of Utah Hospital (Division of Cardiovascular Medicine) of individuals receiving a DOAC from 2015 to 2020. The primary outcome of interest was bleeding events [gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, other anatomical site bleeding (excluding GI), and any bleeding] recorded in the electronic health record that codes using International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th codes. Known risk factors were used to predict bleeding using multivariate logistic regression. A total of 5492 patients received a DOAC during the study period. Less than half the study population were female (2287, 41.6%). During the follow-up, there were 988 patients (18.0%) experiencing a bleeding event. Of them, 351 patients (35.5%) had a GI bleeding event. Significant risk factors of GI bleeding included clopidogrel [odds ratio (OR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.16-2.52] and previous GI bleeding episodes (OR 7.73; 95% CI, 5.36-11.16). Exposure to corticosteroids (OR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87) and previous GI bleeding (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.10-2.35) were associated with an increase in bleeding at other anatomical sites (not GI included).

Positive Association between Peri-Surgical Opioid Exposure and Post-Discharge Opioid-Related Outcomes.

Background: Multiple studies have investigated the epidemic of persistent opioid use as a common postsurgical complication. However, there exists a knowledge gap in the association between the level of opioid exposure in the peri-surgical setting and post-discharge adverse outcomes to patients and healthcare settings. We analyzed the association between peri-surgical opioid exposure use and post-discharge outcomes, including persistent postsurgical opioid prescription, opioid-related symptoms (ORS), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Methods: A retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, spine surgery, total hip arthroplasty, or total knee arthroplasty in an academic healthcare system between January 2015 and June 2018. Peri-surgical opioid exposure was converted into morphine milligram equivalents (MME), then grouped into two categories: high (>median MME of each surgery cohort) or low (≤median MME of each surgery cohort) MME groups. The rates of persistent opioid use 30 and 90 days after discharge were compared using logistic regression. Secondary outcomes, including ORS and HCRU during the 180-day follow-up, were descriptively compared between the high and low MME groups. Results: The odds ratios (95% CI) of high vs. low MME for persistent opioid use after 30 and 90 days of discharge were 1.38 (1.24−1.54) and 1.41 (1.24−1.61), respectively. The proportion of patients with one or more ORS diagnoses was greater among the high-MME group than the low-MME group (27.2% vs. 21.2%, p < 0.01). High vs. low MME was positively associated with the rate of inpatient admission, emergency department admissions, and outpatient visits. Conclusions: Greater peri-surgical opioid exposure correlates with a statistically and clinically significant increase in post-discharge adverse opioid-related outcomes. The study findings warrant intensive monitoring for patients receiving greater peri-surgical opioid exposure.

Proportion of US Hospitalized Medically Ill Patients Who May Qualify for Extended Thromboprophylaxis.

Extended thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation can reduce the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) in high-risk patients. We sought to estimate the proportion of medically ill patients in the United States who might qualify for extended thromboprophylaxis according to the criteria used in the Medically-Ill Patient Assessment of Rivaroxaban versus Placebo in Reducing Post-Discharge Venous ThromboEmbolism Risk (MARINER) trial. We analyzed 2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data that provide a 20% weighted annual sample of all discharges from US acute-care hospitals. Hospitalizations for acute medically ill patients were identified as those with a primary discharge diagnosis code for heart or respiratory failure, ischemic stroke, infection, or inflammatory diseases. Patients were excluded if they were <40 years old, admitted for surgery or trauma, had a length of stay <3- or >35-days, or were contraindicated to nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. The modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE)-VTE score was used to stratify patients' risk for postdischarge VTE, with a score of 2 to 3 suggesting patients were at moderate- and ≥4 as high-risk. Of the 35 358 810 hospitalizations in the 2014 NIS, 1 849 535 were medically ill patients admitted for heart failure (10.1%), respiratory failure (12.2%), ischemic stroke (8.8%), infection (58.5%), or inflammatory diseases (10.4%). The modified IMPROVE-VTE score classified 1 186 475 (64.1%) of these hospitalizations as occurring in moderate-risk and 407 095 (22.0%) in high-risk patients. This real-world study suggests a substantial proportion of acute medically ill patients might benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis using the modified IMPROVE-VTE score and clinical elements of the MARINER trial.

Meta-Analysis of Time in Therapeutic Range in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients Receiving Warfarin.

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) prolong survival in advanced heart failure patients. Anticoagulation control is critical in CF-LVAD patients due to increased thromboembolic and bleeding risk. We assessed the quality of INR control in CF-LVAD patients measured by time in therapeutic range (TTR). We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE and SCOPUS through July 2017 to identify studies evaluating TTR in anticoagulated adult CF-LVAD patients. Data on key characteristics and the TTR end point were then extracted from each study by two investigators using a standardized tool. Using a Hartung-Knapp random effects model, a weighted mean TTR estimate with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Statistical heterogeneity was estimated using the I2 statistic. Five published studies were included. All studies were single-center, retrospective investigations that calculated TTR using the Rosendaal method. Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 115 patients (total of 270 patients) with durations of follow-up ranging from 9 to 76 person-years. On meta-analysis, CF-LVAD patients had a weighted mean TTR of 46.6% (95% CI: 36.0-57.3%, I2 = 94%). This suggests that warfarin is difficult to manage in CF-LVAD patients, which may contribute to high rates of bleeding and thromboembolic complications.