a global retrospective and physician-based analysis of...

1
INTRODUCTION Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have proven to be highly effective in the treatment of various phases of Ph+ CML Several studies have demonstrated that adherence to TKI therapy is a predictor of achieving optimal outcomes 1-3 - Marin and colleagues 1 reported a strong correlation between adherence rate (< 90% or ≥ 90%) and the 6-year probability of a major molecular response (MMR; 28.4% vs 94.5%; P < .001) and complete molecular response (CMR; 0% vs 43.8%; P = .002) - Noens and colleagues 3 demonstrated patients with suboptimal responses had significantly higher mean percentages of missed imatinib doses (23.2% ± 23.8%) than did those with optimal responses (7.3% ± 19.3%, P = .005) Since chronic phase (CP) CML is now a long-term disease in most patients, it is critical that patients understand the importance of adhering to their prescribed drug regimen to maximize and sustain efficacy over many years 1. Marin D, Bazeos A, Mahon FX, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2381-2388. 2. Larson RA , et al. Blood. 2009;114(22):872 [abstract 2213]. 3. Noens L, van Lierde MA, De Bock R, et al. Blood. 2009;113(22):5401-5411. OBJECTIVE To establish the key determinants of drug adherence, and to establish a typical adherence rate to be used as a baseline for future comparison METHODS 405 CML-treating physicians from 5 countries participated in an online quantitative survey and provided patient treatment histories - Physicians were asked to rate statements on a scale of 1-7, with 7 being in full agreement 1,155 patient treatment histories and compliance records were retrospectively analyzed - Patients with Ph+ CML-CP included in the analysis had received therapy with nilotinib, dasatinib, or imatinib - All of the individual patient records analyzed included the dates of all initial and refill prescriptions, as well as information regarding the dosing and quantity of drug supplied Adherence was defined by physician assessment of patient records and recorded in their survey response - Efficacy data was also collected according to physician assessment of the response Countries Included in Research: Physician Respondents Total Records Brazil 48 111 France 103 311 Italy 105 317 Spain 106 300 Russia 43 116 Project Totals: 405 1,155 RESULTS Table 1: Patient Characteristics France (n = 311) Italy (n = 317) Spain (n = 300) Brazil (n = 111) Russia (n = 116) Average age, years 56 58 58 49 48 Patients with comorbidities, % 32 36 28 25 11 Patients on non-CML medications, % 32 32 32 23 10 Patients in chronic phase at diagnosis, % 91 88 93 84 80 Average time between diagnosis and frontline treatment, months 2.1 1.9 3.1 4.3 4.7 RESULTS Figure 1: Percentage of Patient Treatment Based on the Line of Therapy* 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Frontline Second-line Third-line Dasatinib Nilotinib Imatinib % of Patients Being Treated 1.5 43 52 5 21 70 9 1.5 97 * Based on physician responses (n = 314) from France, Italy, and Spain. At the time of this study, imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib were approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of CML in the following patient populations: - Imatinib: newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP and interferon-alpha- failed Ph+ CML-CP, -AP, and -BC - Nilotinib: imatinib-failed Ph+ CML-CP and -AP - Dasatinib: imatinib-failed Ph+ CML-CP, -AP, and -BC Figure 2: Physician Attitudes Regarding the Ability of Achieving a Milestone to Predict Durable Responses to Therapy FR CHR is a predictor of durable response* CCyR is a predictor of durable response* MMR is a predictor of durable response* IT ES BR RU FR IT ES BR RU FR IT ES BR RU 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Strong Predictor Neutral Weak Predictor % of Physicians Please rate the following response levels by their ability to predict a durable response: 16 20 15 33 42 55 71 57 60 65 83 86 82 71 84 47 58 58 40 44 44 27 43 40 35 16 12 18 29 16 37 22 27 27 14 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 * Note: 1-7 Scale, 1-2 Weak Predictor, 3-5 Neutral, 6-7 Strong Predictor. FR, France (n = 103); IT, Italy (n = 105); ES, Spain (n = 106); BR, Brazil (n = 43); RU, Russia (n = 48). Approximately 80% of physicians believed MMR was a strong predictor of durable response Fewer (~60%) believed CCyR was a strong predictor of durable response Figure 3: Physician Attitudes Toward Patient Adherence % of Physicians % of Physicians I would like to have a better sense of whether or not my patients are adherent to therapy* I discuss adherence with my patients at every appointment* FR IT ES BR RU FR IT ES BR RU Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Neutral Disagree 53 25 42 42 79 40 68 49 44 21 7 8 9 15 53 44 58 83 91 42 52 39 17 9 5 0 3 4 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 * Note: 1-7 Scale, 1-2 Disagree, 3-5 Neutral, 6-7 Agree. FR, France (n = 103); IT, Italy (n = 105); ES, Spain (n = 106); BR, Brazil (n = 43); RU, Russia (n = 48). The majority of physicians agreed that they discuss adherence with their patients at every appointment Figure 4: Physician Attitudes Towards Patient Adherence Sufficient evidence exists that, for patients with CML, better adherence improves outcomes* Non-adherence is a major driver of disease progression* FR IT ES BR RU % of Physicians FR IT ES BR RU % of Physicians 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 74 54 63 85 88 25 44 36 15 12 1 1 2 0 0 52 19 58 38 74 43 68 39 58 26 5 13 4 0 3 Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Neutral Disagree * Note: 1-7 Scale, 1-2 Disagree, 3-5 Neutral, 6-7 Agree. FR, France (n = 103); IT, Italy (n = 105); ES, Spain (n = 106); BR, Brazil (n = 43); RU, Russia (n = 48). The majority of physicians from the 5 countries agreed there is a link between adherence and improved outcomes Physicians from France, Spain, and Russia agreed that non- adherence was a driver of progression, while the majority of physicians from Italy and Brazil had neutral feelings about this statement Table 2: Percent of Patients with Missed Doses by Country % Patients France Italy Spain Brazil Russia No missed doses 43 46 46 52 53 1%-5% missed doses 40 36 35 32 17 5%-10% missed doses 7 7 7 8 7 ≥ 10% missed doses 10 11 12 8 23 Overall, 47%-57% of patients had some missed doses On average, > 10% of patients missed ≥ 10% of their prescribed daily dose Although patients in Russia had the highest percentage of patients who did not miss a dose, patients in Russia had the highest percentage of ≥ 10% of their doses being missed Figure 5: Percent of Missed Doses in Patients with Known Response Levels* CHR PCyR CCyR MMR CMR % of Patients With Missed Doses 60 19 70 87 127 n = 7.5 8.5 5.2 4.1 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 * Includes 363 patient records from France, Italy, and Spain. Greater adherence to therapy was significantly correlated with achievement of better therapeutic milestones (P = .04) The patients with the lowest adherence rate achieved a best response rate of PCyR; over 20% of patients with a PCyR missed ≥ 10% of their doses Patients who had the highest levels of adherence were also reported as having deeper response levels (MMR and CMR) Figure 6: Modeled Estimate of the Percentage of Patients With CML Remaining on Therapy Based on Patient Records and US Claims Data* 0% 25% 50% 75% European Region Record Review Data US Healthcare Claims Data (24 month Enrollment ) 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Months After Imatinib Initiation % of Patients With CML Remaining on Therapy European region, n = 386 patient records with ≥ 24 months of therapy 80% 80% * Includes 363 patient records from France, Italy, and Spain. PharMetrics Data (2001-2008); unlimited gaps in therapy allowed. Minimum enrollment approach requires at least 3 months continuous eligibility prior to first imatinib claim and at least 24 months of continuous eligibility following first imatinib claim Data from patients records within the European region closely matched the US Healthcare claims data analysis, suggesting there were similar rates of discontinuation from therapy among the Europe and the US regions Table 3: Potential Factors That Influence Patient Adherence All 5 Countries France, Italy, and Spain Only Patient Records (n) Missed Doses (%) P value Missed Doses Patient Records (n) Missed Doses (%) P value Missed Doses Healthcare providers involved in patient adherence counseling Hematologist only 125 4 .100 65 3.2 .027 Nurse but no hematologist 41 9.6 38 10.0 Both nurse and hematologist 114 6.1 82 2.5 Neither nurse nor hematologist 233 4.7 185 5.4 Patient co- morbidities No significant co-morbidities 374 4.9 .344 281 4.2 .093 ≥ 1 co-morbidities 139 6.2 122 6.6 Patient age < 60 years 301 5.0 .533 214 4.7 .704 ≥ 60 years 212 5.7 189 5.2 Concomitant medication No 363 5.0 .519 270 4.4 .209 Yes 150 5.9 189 5.2 Patient record review of the subset of patients in France, Italy and Spain demonstrated patients adhered to their therapy significantly better if individually counseled on adherence by a nurse and/or hematologist Higher numerical rates of non-adherence were observed in patients with comorbidities and concomitant medications, though the differences did not reach statistical significance Figure 7: Adherence Support Roles Healthcare Providers Currently Play vs Roles Physicians Believe They Should Play* 71 36 41 40 64 67 49 40 54 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Physicians Nurses Pharmacists Physicians Nurses Physicians Nurses Pharmacists Adherence support outside of office visit 71 36 41 40 64 67 49 40 54 57 36 Pharmacists % of Physician Responses Current role Roles they should play Identify non-adherent patients Respond regarding tolerability issues 13 29 14 25 27 11 25 * Includes 363 patient records from France, Italy, and Spain. Responses to the survey questions could include that more than one healthcare professional was currently being used or that they should play a larger role; therefore, the sum of responses in each category may not have a sum of 100%. Across the countries, physicians believed they take on an appropriate amount of responsibility on adherence education and that nurses and pharmacists could play a more active role in adherence management Physicians believed a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing patient adherence may be beneficial Figure 8: Patient Enrollment in Adherence Programs* (N = 623 Patient Records) Percent of Patients Pill Organizer for Patient Use Patient Medication Diary 24 Hour Nurse Hot-Lines Informational Calendar Pamphlets Explaining Medication Regimens Nurse Specialist Calls Patients Refill Reminder Calls Patient Buddy Programs Pharmacy Refill Reports No Programs 6% 6% 8% 15% 16% 18% 55% 1% 1% 3% 0% 100% * Enrollment of patients from France, Italy, and Spain in compliance programs (n = 623 patient records). Physicians are generally reactive when utilizing adherence interventions, rather than proactive The survey of CML-treating physicians demonstrated that their perceptions of adherence closely matched the actual rates of adherence Figure 9: Physician Monitoring of Non-adherence* 60 53 57 41 30 41 11 36 41 7 5 14 7 7 26 28 37 23 34 50 28 47 44 27 59 48 42 48 40 45 8 7 14 17 15 19 28 15 25 31 36 37 38 40 24 4 3 6 9 6 12 15 5 7 3 11 7 8 13 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FR IT ES FR IT ES FR IT ES FR IT ES FR IT Pharmacy data reported to me shows non-adherence Blood level monitoring results suggest non-adherence Frequency of writing prescription refills shows non-adherence Patient proactively mentions their own adherence Discussions with the patient suggest non-adherence ES % of Physicians Never Sometimes Usuallly Always * Includes responses from physicians in France, Italy, and Spain. FR, France (n = 103); IT, Italy (n = 105); ES, Spain (n = 106). Physicians responded they most frequently learn about patient non- adherence through conversations with patients, rather than through other means, such as the frequency of writing prescription refills Additionally, physicians stated they believed patient forgetfulness was the major reason behind non-adherence (42%-73% of respondents) CONCLUSIONS Only 43%-53% of patients were fully adherent to therapy across all 5 countries that participated in this study - Overall, > 10% of patients missed ≥ 10% of their prescribed daily dose Addressing non-adherence by multiple healthcare professionals resulted in patients missing significantly fewer doses (P = .027) Greater adherence to therapy was significantly correlated with achievement of better therapeutic milestones (P = .04), which may have an impact on the long-term outcomes of patients This study implies that adherence can be improved through a multi-disciplinary team involvement and provides strong support for the implementation of early, proactive and focused interventions in combating non-adherence to maximize patient outcomes -= DISCLOSURES Guilhot: Novartis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Coombs: Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zernovak: Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Szczudlo: Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rosti: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. -= ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Marc Paolantonio of Novartis for his support with these data. A Global Retrospective and Physician-Based Analysis of Adherence to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Therapies for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) François Guilhot 1 , John Coombs 2 , Oleg Zernovak 2 , Tomasz Szczudlo 2 and Gianantonio Rosti 3 1 Clinical Investigation Centre P 802 INSERM, CHU de Poitiers, Poitiers, France; 2 Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ; 3 Department of Hematology/Oncology, “L. and A. Seràgnoli”, St Orsola University Hospital, Bologna, Italy Poster Presentation at the 52nd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, December 4-7, 2010, Orlando, Florida [abstract 1514].

Upload: others

Post on 24-May-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A Global Retrospective and Physician-Based Analysis of ...infosites.mims.com/Portals/9/PDF/Guilhot_Pt-Adherence_ASH2010_a… · results table 1: Patient characteristics France (n

introduction

• Tyrosinekinaseinhibitors(TKIs)haveproventobehighlyeffectiveinthetreatmentofvariousphasesofPh+CML

• SeveralstudieshavedemonstratedthatadherencetoTKItherapyisapredictorofachievingoptimaloutcomes1-3

- Marinandcolleagues1reportedastrongcorrelationbetweenadherencerate(<90%or≥90%)andthe6-yearprobabilityofamajormolecularresponse(MMR;28.4%vs94.5%;P<.001)andcompletemolecularresponse(CMR;0%vs43.8%;P=.002)

- Noensandcolleagues3demonstratedpatientswithsuboptimalresponseshadsignificantlyhighermeanpercentagesofmissedimatinibdoses(23.2%±23.8%)thandidthosewithoptimalresponses(7.3%±19.3%,P=.005)

• Sincechronicphase(CP)CMLisnowalong-termdiseaseinmostpatients,itiscriticalthatpatientsunderstandtheimportanceofadheringtotheirprescribeddrugregimentomaximizeandsustainefficacyovermanyyears

1. Marin D, Bazeos A, Mahon FX, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2381-2388. 2. Larson RA , et al. Blood. 2009;114(22):872 [abstract 2213]. 3. Noens L, van Lierde MA, De Bock R, et al. Blood. 2009;113(22):5401-5411.

objective

• Toestablishthekeydeterminantsofdrugadherence,andtoestablishatypicaladherenceratetobeusedasabaselineforfuturecomparison

methods

• 405CML-treatingphysiciansfrom5countriesparticipatedinanonlinequantitativesurveyandprovidedpatienttreatmenthistories

- Physicianswereaskedtoratestatementsonascaleof1-7,with7beinginfullagreement

• 1,155patienttreatmenthistoriesandcompliancerecordswereretrospectivelyanalyzed

- PatientswithPh+CML-CPincludedintheanalysishadreceivedtherapywithnilotinib,dasatinib,orimatinib

- Alloftheindividualpatientrecordsanalyzedincludedthedatesofallinitialandrefillprescriptions,aswellasinformationregardingthedosingandquantityofdrugsupplied

• Adherencewasdefinedbyphysicianassessmentofpatientrecordsandrecordedintheirsurveyresponse

- Efficacydatawasalsocollectedaccordingtophysicianassessmentoftheresponse

countries included in research: Physician respondents total records

Brazil 48 111

France 103 311

Italy 105 317

Spain 106 300

Russia 43 116

Project totals: 405 1,155

results

table 1: Patient characteristicsFrance

(n = 311)italy

(n = 317)spain

(n = 300)brazil

(n = 111)russia

(n = 116)

Average age, years 56 58 58 49 48

Patients with comorbidities, % 32 36 28 25 11

Patients on non-CML medications, % 32 32 32 23 10

Patients in chronic phase at diagnosis, % 91 88 93 84 80

Average time between diagnosis and frontline treatment, months

2.1 1.9 3.1 4.3 4.7

results

Figure 1: Percentage of Patient treatment based on the line of therapy*

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Frontline Second-line Third-line

Dasatinib Nilotinib Imatinib

% o

f P

atie

nts

Bei

ng T

reat

ed

1.5

43

52

5

21

70

9

1.5

97

* Based on physician responses (n = 314) from France, Italy, and Spain.

• Atthetimeofthisstudy,imatinib,nilotinib,anddasatinibwereapprovedbytheEuropeanMedicinesAgencyforthetreatmentofCMLinthefollowingpatientpopulations:

- Imatinib:newlydiagnosedPh+CML-CPandinterferon-alpha-failedPh+CML-CP,-AP,and-BC

- Nilotinib:imatinib-failedPh+CML-CPand-AP - Dasatinib:imatinib-failedPh+CML-CP,-AP,and-BC

Figure 2: Physician Attitudes regarding the Ability of Achieving a milestone to Predict durable responses to therapy

FR

CHR is a predictor of durable response*

CCyR is a predictor of durable response*

MMR is a predictor of durable response*

IT ES BR RU FR IT ES BR RU FR IT ES BR RU0

102030405060708090

100

Strong Predictor Neutral Weak Predictor

% o

f P

hysi

cian

s

Please rate the following response levels by their ability to predict a durable response:

16 20 1533

4255

7157 60 65

83 86 8271

8447

5858

40

44

4427

43 40 3516 12 18

2916

3722 27 27

14

1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

* Note: 1-7 Scale, 1-2 Weak Predictor, 3-5 Neutral, 6-7 Strong Predictor.Fr, France (n = 103); it, Italy (n = 105); es, Spain (n = 106); br, Brazil (n = 43); ru, Russia (n = 48).

• Approximately80%ofphysiciansbelievedMMRwasastrongpredictorofdurableresponse

• Fewer(~60%)believedCCyRwasastrongpredictorofdurableresponse

Figure 3: Physician Attitudes toward Patient Adherence

% o

f P

hysi

cian

s

% o

f P

hysi

cian

s

I would like to have a better sense of whether or not my

patients are adherent to therapy*

I discuss adherence with my patients at every appointment*

FR IT ES BR RU FR IT ES BR RUAgree Neutral Disagree Agree Neutral Disagree

53

25

42 42

79

40

6849 44

217 8 9 15

5344

58

8391

4252

39

179

50 34 0 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

* Note: 1-7 Scale, 1-2 Disagree, 3-5 Neutral, 6-7 Agree.Fr, France (n = 103); it, Italy (n = 105); es, Spain (n = 106); br, Brazil (n = 43); ru, Russia (n = 48).

• Themajorityofphysiciansagreedthattheydiscussadherencewiththeirpatientsateveryappointment

Figure 4: Physician Attitudes towards Patient Adherence

Sufficient evidence exists that, for patients with CML, better

adherence improves outcomes*

Non-adherence is a major driver of disease progression*

FR IT ES BR RU

% o

f P

hysi

cian

s

FR IT ES BR RU

% o

f P

hysi

cian

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

74

5463

85 88

25

4436

15 12

1 12 0 0

52

19

58

38

74

43

68

39

58

26

5 13 4 03

Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Neutral Disagree

* Note: 1-7 Scale, 1-2 Disagree, 3-5 Neutral, 6-7 Agree.Fr, France (n = 103); it, Italy (n = 105); es, Spain (n = 106); br, Brazil (n = 43); ru, Russia (n = 48).

• Themajorityofphysiciansfromthe5countriesagreedthereisalinkbetweenadherenceandimprovedoutcomes

• PhysiciansfromFrance,Spain,andRussiaagreedthatnon-adherencewasadriverofprogression,whilethemajorityofphysiciansfromItalyandBrazilhadneutralfeelingsaboutthisstatement

table 2: Percent of Patients with missed doses by country% Patients France italy spain brazil russia

No missed doses 43 46 46 52 53

1%-5% missed doses 40 36 35 32 17

5%-10% missed doses 7 7 7 8 7

≥ 10% missed doses 10 11 12 8 23

• Overall,47%-57%ofpatientshadsomemisseddoses• Onaverage,>10%ofpatientsmissed≥10%oftheirprescribed

dailydose• AlthoughpatientsinRussiahadthehighestpercentageofpatients

whodidnotmissadose,patientsinRussiahadthehighestpercentageof≥10%oftheirdosesbeingmissed

Figure 5: Percent of missed doses in Patients with Known response levels*

CHR PCyR CCyR MMR CMR

% o

f P

atie

nts

Wit

h M

isse

d D

ose

s

60 19 70 87 127n =

7.5

8.5

5.2

4.1

2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

* Includes 363 patient records from France, Italy, and Spain.

• Greateradherencetotherapywassignificantlycorrelatedwithachievementofbettertherapeuticmilestones(P=.04)

• ThepatientswiththelowestadherencerateachievedabestresponserateofPCyR;over20%ofpatientswithaPCyRmissed≥10%oftheirdoses

• Patientswhohadthehighestlevelsofadherencewerealsoreportedashavingdeeperresponselevels(MMRandCMR)

Figure 6: modeled estimate of the Percentage of Patients With cml remaining on therapy based on Patient records and us claims data*

0%

25%

50%

75%

European Region Record Review Data

US Healthcare Claims Data (24 month Enrollment†)

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Months After Imatinib Initiation

% o

f Pat

ient

s W

ith C

ML

Rem

aini

ng o

n Th

erap

y

European region, n = 386 patient records with ≥ 24 months of therapy

80%

80%

* Includes 363 patient records from France, Italy, and Spain.† PharMetrics Data (2001-2008); unlimited gaps in therapy allowed. Minimum enrollment approach requires at least

3 months continuous eligibility prior to first imatinib claim and at least 24 months of continuous eligibility following first imatinib claim

• DatafrompatientsrecordswithintheEuropeanregioncloselymatchedtheUSHealthcareclaimsdataanalysis,suggestingthereweresimilarratesofdiscontinuationfromtherapyamongtheEuropeandtheUSregions

table 3: Potential Factors that influence Patient AdherenceAll 5 countries France, italy, and spain only

Patient records

(n)

missed doses

(%)

P value missed doses

Patient records

(n)

missed doses

(%)

P value missed doses

Healthcare providers involved in patient adherence counseling

Hematologist only 125 4

.100

65 3.2

.027

Nurse but no hematologist 41 9.6 38 10.0

Both nurse and hematologist 114 6.1 82 2.5

Neither nurse nor hematologist 233 4.7 185 5.4

Patient co-morbidities

No significant co-morbidities 374 4.9

.344281 4.2

.093

≥ 1 co-morbidities 139 6.2 122 6.6

Patient age < 60 years 301 5.0.533

214 4.7.704

≥ 60 years 212 5.7 189 5.2

Concomitant medication

No 363 5.0.519

270 4.4.209

Yes 150 5.9 189 5.2

• PatientrecordreviewofthesubsetofpatientsinFrance,ItalyandSpaindemonstratedpatientsadheredtotheirtherapysignificantlybetterifindividuallycounseledonadherencebyanurseand/orhematologist

• Highernumericalratesofnon-adherencewereobservedinpatientswithcomorbiditiesandconcomitantmedications,thoughthedifferencesdidnotreachstatisticalsignificance

Figure 7: Adherence support roles healthcare Providers currently Play vs roles Physicians believe they should Play*

71

36

41 40

6467

4940

54

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Physici

ans

Nurses

Pharm

acist

s

Physici

ans

Nurses

Physici

ans

Nurses

Pharm

acist

s

Adherence supportoutside of office visit

71

3641 40

6467

49

40

5457

36

Pharm

acist

s

% o

f P

hysi

cian

Res

po

nses

Current role Roles they should play

Identify non-adherent patients

Respond regardingtolerability issues

13

29

14

25 27

11

25

* Includes 363 patient records from France, Italy, and Spain. Responses to the survey questions could include that more than one healthcare professional was currently being used or that they should play a larger role; therefore, the sum of responses in each category may not have a sum of 100%.

• Acrossthecountries,physiciansbelievedtheytakeonanappropriateamountofresponsibilityonadherenceeducationandthatnursesandpharmacistscouldplayamoreactiveroleinadherencemanagement

• Physiciansbelievedamulti-disciplinaryapproachtoaddressingpatientadherencemaybebeneficial

Figure 8: Patient enrollment in Adherence Programs* (n = 623 Patient records)

Percent of Patients

Pill Organizerfor Patient Use

Patient Medication Diary

24 Hour Nurse Hot-Lines

Informational Calendar

Pamphlets ExplainingMedication Regimens

Nurse Specialist Calls Patients

Refill Reminder Calls

Patient Buddy Programs

Pharmacy Refill Reports

No Programs

6%

6%

8%

15%

16%

18%

55%

1%

1%

3%

0% 100%

* Enrollment of patients from France, Italy, and Spain in compliance programs (n = 623 patient records).

• Physiciansaregenerallyreactivewhenutilizingadherenceinterventions,ratherthanproactive

• ThesurveyofCML-treatingphysiciansdemonstratedthattheirperceptionsofadherencecloselymatchedtheactualratesofadherence

Figure 9: Physician monitoring of non-adherence*

6053 57

4130

41

11

36 41

7 514

7 7

26

2837

23

3450 28

47

4427

59

4842

4840

45

8 714

1715

1928

1525 31

3637 38

40

24

4 3 6 9 612 15

5 7 311 7 8

135

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FR IT ES FR IT ES FR IT ES FR IT ES FR IT

Pharmacy datareported to me shows

non-adherence

Blood level monitoringresults suggestnon-adherence

Frequency of writingprescription refills shows

non-adherence

Patient proactivelymentions theirown adherence

Discussions with thepatient suggestnon-adherence

ES

% o

f Ph

ysic

ian

s

Never Sometimes Usuallly Always

* Includes responses from physicians in France, Italy, and Spain. Fr, France (n = 103); it, Italy (n = 105); es, Spain (n = 106).

• Physiciansrespondedtheymostfrequentlylearnaboutpatientnon-adherencethroughconversationswithpatients,ratherthanthroughothermeans,suchasthefrequencyofwritingprescriptionrefills

• Additionally,physiciansstatedtheybelievedpatientforgetfulnesswasthemajorreasonbehindnon-adherence(42%-73%ofrespondents)

conclusions

• Only43%-53%ofpatientswerefullyadherenttotherapyacrossall5countriesthatparticipatedinthisstudy

- Overall,>10%ofpatientsmissed≥10%oftheirprescribeddailydose

• Addressingnon-adherencebymultiplehealthcareprofessionalsresultedinpatientsmissingsignificantlyfewerdoses(P=.027)

• Greateradherencetotherapywassignificantlycorrelatedwithachievementofbettertherapeuticmilestones(P=.04),whichmayhaveanimpactonthelong-termoutcomesofpatients

• Thisstudyimpliesthatadherencecanbeimprovedthroughamulti-disciplinaryteaminvolvementandprovidesstrongsupportfortheimplementationofearly,proactiveandfocusedinterventionsincombatingnon-adherencetomaximizepatientoutcomes

-= disclosures

Guilhot: Novartis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. coombs: Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zernovak: Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. szczudlo: Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. rosti: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau.

-= AcKnoWledGment

The authors would like to thank Marc Paolantonio of Novartis for his support with these data.

A Global Retrospective and Physician-Based Analysis of Adherence to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Therapies for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML)

François Guilhot1, John Coombs2, Oleg Zernovak2, Tomasz Szczudlo2 and Gianantonio Rosti3

1Clinical Investigation Centre P 802 INSERM, CHU de Poitiers, Poitiers, France; 2Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ; 3Department of Hematology/Oncology, “L. and A. Seràgnoli”, St Orsola University Hospital, Bologna, Italy

Poster Presentation at the 52nd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, December 4-7, 2010, Orlando, Florida [abstract 1514].