Facilitating human papillomavirus vaccination pathways by extending vaccination competencies to community pharmacists: A cross-sectional survey on the acceptability and expectations among healthcare professionals and parents.

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage rate (VCR) remains low in France (37.4% in girls in 2021). The French health authority recommended in 2022 to extend vaccination competencies to additional healthcare providers (HCPs), including community pharmacists (CPs). Objectives: To understand the acceptability by general practitioners (GPs), CPs and parents of adolescents of extending vaccination competencies and to identify benefits and barriers of new vaccination pathways. Methods: This cross-sectional research used a qualitative and quantitative approach. For the quantitative survey, GPs, CPs and parents of adolescents eligible to HPV vaccination completed an online questionnaire. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in different pathways and evaluate them. Results: A total of 200 GPs, 201 CPs and 800 parents were included. The level of acceptability of extending vaccination competencies to other HCPs was high in CPs (86% rated ≥7/10), but low in GPs (35%) and intermediate in parents (61%). Parents ranked first (44%) a pathway where GPs prescribed while CPs vaccinated because GPs inspire confidence as vaccine prescribers (80%) and parents prefer to be informed on vaccination by them (80%). CPs ranked first (42%) a scenario where they vaccinated after invitation of adolescents from the French National Health Insurance Fund (NHIS). They emphasized the simplicity of this scenario (94%) and the potential increase of VCR (91%), but asked to be more informed on HPV vaccination (77%) and favored television (83%) for communication campaigns. Conclusions: GPs and parents, in contrast with community pharmacists, were only moderately supportive of the extension the vaccination competencies. Confidence in the HCP remains the primary factor for adherence to a vaccination pathway beyond the simplicity of the pathway. Training of CPs, traceability tool, support from authorities and communication campaigns are levers that will support CPs in their new role and contribute to increase parents' acceptability toward CPs.

Riociguat real-world use in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: A retrospective, observational cohort study in France.

BACKGROUND: Riociguat is the first approved treatment for inoperable and persistent/recurrent post-surgery chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). The RetrospectIve Adempas® stuDy (RiAD) aimed to describe the real-world utilization of riociguat in France. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric study in patients initiating riociguat, dosing regimen, co-treatments and clinical characteristics were collected over a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; female, 63.0%; NYHA II-III, 80.3%) were included from January 2015 to December 2016 in 18 centers. All patients were diagnosed with CTEPH (75.7% inoperable and 20.8% with persistent/recurrent pulmonary hypertension [pH] after surgery) with mean (SD) right atrial pressure 7.6 (4.2) mmHg, mean pulmonary artery pressure 43.0 (11.4) mmHg and mean cardiac output 4.1 (1.1) L/min. Before riociguat initiation, 32.4% of patients previously received at least one pH-specific therapy. At initiation, 93.1% of patients were receiving anticoagulants and 83.2% were not receiving pH-specific co-treatments. Riociguat was initiated at 1 mg three times daily (t.i.d.) in 85.5% of patients and 82.1% were receiving 2.5 mg dose t.i.d. at 24 months. The maximal daily dose of 7.5 mg was never exceeded. At 24 months, the estimated rate of patients still taking riociguat was 78.8% with an estimated mean (SD) time on treatment of 20.1 (0.5) months per patient. No new safety signals were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this real-world study show that riociguat is used in France in accordance with its therapeutic indication in patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent post-operative CTEPH and confirm its long-term safety.

Real-world data and evidence in health technology assessment: When are they complementary, substitutes, or the only sources of data compared to clinical trials?

Within the life-cycle assessment of health technologies, real-world data (RWD) have until now been of secondary importance to clinical trial data. The availability of massive, better quality RWD, particularly with the emergence of connected devices, the improvement of methods for characterizing populations, make it possible to have a better insight into the effects of treatment, sometimes on a national scale the importance of RWD is likely to progress in the eyes of health technology assessors, going from being traditionally complementary to possibly replacing clinical trial data. This is the fundamental question that the round table, involving experts from the academic and/or hospital, institutional, and industrial worlds, set out to answer. This work served first to establish the current role of RWD in health technology assessment, by distinguishing the main purposes of RWD, the timing of the evaluation in relation to the life cycle of the technology, and then according to the party commissioning or receiving the outcomes of RWD-based studies. Secondly, the round table proposed six general recommendations for more intensive and decisive use of RWD in the assessment and decision-making process.

Hospital costs of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty (BPA) procedure and management for CTEPH patients: An observational study based on the French national hospital discharge database (PMSI).

INTRODUCTION: Since 2014, Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty (BPA) has become an emerging and complementary strategy for chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) patients who are not suitable for pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) or who have recurrent symptoms after the PEA procedure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the hospital cost of BPA sessions and management in CTEPH patients. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study of CTEPH-adults hospitalized for a BPA between January 1st, 2014 and June 30th, 2016 was conducted in the 2 centres performing BPA in France (Paris Sud and Grenoble) using the French national hospital discharge database (PMSI-MCO). Patients were followed until 6 months or death, whichever occurred first. Follow-up stays were classified as stays with BPA sessions, for BPA management or for CTEPH management based on a pre-defined algorithm and a medical review using type of diagnosis (ICD-10), delay from last BPA procedure stay and length of stay. Hospital costs (including medical transports) were estimated from National Health Insurance perspective using published official French tariffs from 2014 to 2016 and expressed in 2017 Euros. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were analysed; mainly male (53%), with a mean age of 64,3 years. The first BPA session was performed 1.1 years in median (IQR 0.3-2.92) after the first PH hospitalisation. A mean of 3 stays with BPA sessions per patient were reported with a mean length of stay of 8 days for the first stay and 6 days for successive stays. The total hospital cost attributable to BPA was € 4,057,825 corresponding to €8,764±3,435 per stay and €21,245±12,843 per patient. Results were sensitive to age classes, density of commune of residence and some comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The study generated robust real-world data to assess the hospital cost of BPA sessions and management in CTEPH patients within its first years of implementation in France.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus standard-of-care chemotherapy for first-line treatment of PD-L1 positive (>50%) metastatic squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in France.

INTRODUCTION: In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, pembrolizumab demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus Standard-of-Care (SoC) platinum-based doublets for first-line treatment of PD-L1 -positive (≥50%) metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with no EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus SoC platinum-based chemotherapy from the French healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A three-state partitioned-survival model was adapted to project outcomes and costs of squamous and non-squamous NSCLC patients respectively, over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical and utility data were collected from the trial. A network meta-analysis was performed to consider platinum-based triplets also used for non-squamous NSCLC. Direct medical costs were considered based on ressources identified from the trial and literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 4% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as cost per Life Year (LY) and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: For squamous NSCLC, pembrolizumab was projected to increase life expectancy of patients by 0.93 LY (11 months), and 0.74 QALY (9 months) for an incremental cost of €62,032 compared with platinum-based doublets. The ICER of pembrolizumab versus platinum-based doublets was €66,825/LY and €84,097/QALY. For non-squamous NSCLC, pembrolizumab was projected to increase life expectancy of patients by 0.85-1.32 LYs (10.2-15.8 months) and 0.64-1.02 QALYs (7.7-12.2 months) for an incremental cost varying from €-14,947-+47,064 depending on the specific comparator. The ICER of pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab was €62,846/LY and €78,729/QALY; regimens including pemetrexed were dominated. Results were most sensitive to extrapolations of survival outcomes and assumptions for continued effectiveness and treatment duration of pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab appears cost-effective versus SoC chemotherapy for first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive (50%) metastatic NSCLC patients in France, assuming willingness-to-pay under 100,000€/QALY (OECD threshold in the discussion section).