Search

Priyanka Gaitonde,1 Viktor Chirikov,2 Sneha Kelkar,2 Bengt Liljas1 1AstraZeneca, Health Economics & Payer Evidence, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2OPEN Health Evidence & Access, Bethesda, MD, USACorrespondence: Priyanka Gaitonde, Oncology Market Access and Pricing, AstraZeneca, 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA, Email priyanka.gaitonde@astrazeneca.comBackground: To extend the discussion on the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in conveying the clinical value of treatment beyond trial data, the primary objective of this study was to assess if efficacy gains in progression-free survival (PFS) observed in randomized controlled trials (RCT) correlate with efficacy gains in the real-world setting. For this, we assessed the treatment benefit of three tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in aNSCLC.Methods: Using matched cohorts identified in the Flatiron Health database (2011– 2020), we mimicked the following cohorts of TKI versus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) from the following trials: (1) erlotinib, EURTAC; (2) afatinib, LUX-Lung 3; and (3) crizotinib, PROFILE 1014. Time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) hazard ratio (HR) was used as a proxy for PFS HR, the primary endpoint in the selected RCTs. HRs were calculated via Cox proportional hazard models.Results: Overall, 1,118 patients were included across the three RWE cohorts. Frontline TKI regimens had statistically significantly better real-world TTD than their matched PBC comparator group (HR 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30– 0.44 for erlotinib; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32– 0.55 for afatinib; HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26– 0.53 for crizotinib). The benefit in real-world OS was not different between TKIs and PBC patients, attributed to a high proportion of switching to subsequent therapy. Study findings of relative treatment benefit (HR) for real-world TTD and OS were deemed similar to those for PFS and OS from the pivotal RCTs.Conclusion: The relative treatment effect, measured as real-world TTD HR over the long term, was similar to trial-based PFS HR, implying that the clinical benefit of aNSCLC treatments conveyed in trials translated into the clinical setting. This is important, given that OS data interpretation is limited, even with longer follow-up. Additionally, our RWE analysis endorses TTD as a relevant endpoint to measure clinical benefit.Keywords: non–small cell lung cancer, short- and long-term outcomes, time to treatment discontinuation, reimbursement

Clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have improved with targeted therapy, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as acalabrutinib. A semi-Markov model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for acalabrutinib ± obinutuzumab vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL (based on ELEVATE-TN). The model used direct costs and resource utilization from the US Medicare perspective and utility values sourced from literature. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. Over a 30-year lifetime horizon, the model base case analysis suggested that acalabrutinib monotherapy had an incremental cost of $206,329 and 2.52 QALYs gained versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $81,960/QALY. Acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab had an incremental cost of $423,747 and 2.79 QALYs gained (ICER: $152,153/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the probability of acalabrutinib monotherapy being cost-effective as 59% to 73% at a $100,000-to-150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold; the probability of acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab being cost-effective ranged from 34% to 51%. Although the analysis is limited by uncertainty in postprogression survival outcomes, acalabrutinib monotherapy is likely cost-effective vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL in the US Medicare setting.

Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) have poor outcomes, with 5-year survival rates of5% for those with metastatic, stage IV disease. We have reviewed current treatment paradigms and emerging treatment options for these patients.The websites of seven national or international organizations were searched for metastatic UC treatment guidelines. Systematic literature reviews were conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage IV UC. Searches included congress databases and articles published between 1990 and 2018. In order to align with the latest treatment paradigms in first-line advanced UC, a focused literature search was conducted to identify evidence supporting immuno-oncology (IO) agents.For advanced UC, guidelines universally recommend cisplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for eligible patients and carboplatin-based regimens for those unfit to receive cisplatin. Despite the evaluation of a number of different cytotoxic regimens over the years, including triplet combinations, survival outcomes have not improved markedly with chemotherapy. Median overall survival with standard of care chemotherapy is ~13 months. Based on the results of single-arm, phase II studies, recent treatment guidelines have included atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) as first-line options for cisplatin-ineligible patients whose tumors express high levels of PD-L1. However, emerging evidence from RCTs of IO agents, including both cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients, suggest that survival times exceeding 20 months are possible.After having reached a plateau with chemotherapy, the treatment landscape for advanced UC is evolving. Survival outcomes for patients with advanced UC are improving with treatment modalities involving IO agents.

Objective We examined the treatment patterns among adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and identified factors influencing access to traditional and biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods We analyzed visits recorded in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2005–2014 with a RA diagnosis. The primary outcome was DMARD use (traditional and/or biological). We included prescriptions of all RA-related treatments such as traditional and biological DMARDs, glucocorticoids, gold preparations, immunosuppressants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Covariates in the logistic regression models included age, gender, race/ethnicity, type of healthcare coverage, provider type, geographic region, and number of comorbidities. Results Among 1405 visits with a RA diagnosis, 60.4% (n=807) were prescribed DMARDs and 23.8% (n=334) biological DMARDs. In fully adjusted models, females have 1.57 times higher odds of any DMARD use (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.02–2.46). Also, Medicare beneficiaries as compared to privately insured have 2.31 times higher odds of receiving any DMARDs (95% CI: 1.40–3.82), while visits with specialist versus general physician are 2.38 times more associated with any DMARD use (95% CI: 1.37–4.14). For biological DMARDs, Medicare beneficiaries were at 2.58 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.42–4.70) than privately insured, while visits with specialist are at 3.37 times higher odds than general physician (95% CI: 1.40–8.23). Conclusion Visits with a specialist and Medicare beneficiaries were significantly associated with any/biological DMARD use. Additionally, contrary to prior evidence, race/ethnicity was not associated with any/biological DMARD use, which may indicate reduction in disparity of treatment access.

Introduction: Acalabrutinib (A) and ibrutinib (I) are both highly effective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and given as continuous treatments until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Venetoclax is a BH3 mimetic compound and B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor prescribed in combination with obinutuzumab (V+O) for a fixed (12-cycle) duration in treatment-naïve CLL patients. Although the ELEVATE-RR study demonstrated an improved safety profile of A compared with I in a head-to-head clinical trial, this study did not include treatment-naïve CLL patients (Byrd et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021). This MAIC builds upon the published analysis by Davids et al (Leuk Lymphoma. 2021) in treatment-naïve patients with CLL (which demonstrated a favorable safety profile for A-based therapy compared with other targeted therapies without compromising efficacy) by including longer follow-up data for A and the comparators. Methods: Individual patient data for A ± obinutuzumab (A+O) from ELEVATE-TN (47 months median follow-up) (Sharman et al. ASCO 2021) were weighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the I monotherapy arm from the ALLIANCE trial (Woyach et al. NEJM. 2018) (I + rituximab was not included as this treatment is not approved for CLL) and the V+O arm from the CLL-14 trial (Al-Sawaf et al. Lancet Oncol 2020). These baseline characteristics, TP53 mutation, serum β 2 microglobulin, ECOG, IGHV status, del(11q), CrCl, Rai stage or CLL-IPI, are potential prognostic variables (PV). Pseudo-individual patient data were generated from the digitized Kaplan-Meier curves published in the aforementioned comparator trials. An unanchored MAIC was conducted to adjust for these PVs between trials. The PVs selected were based on literature, clinical judgement, and demonstrated statistically significant association with progression-free survival (PFS) in univariate and multivariate regression analysis (Ahn et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020; Eichorst and Hallek. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Prog. 2016). After matching, a weighted Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze PFS and overall survival (OS) while a weighted logistic regression model was used for comparative safety analysis (grade ≥3 adverse events [AEs]). Two-sided p Results: This MAIC included 47-month data from ELEVATE-TN, 38-month data from ALLIANCE, and 40-month data from CLL-14 as opposed to 28-month data from ELEVATE-TN, 29-month data from RESONATE-2, and 29-month data from CLL-14 included in the previously published analysis. In the A vs I comparison, the PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83 [95% CI 0.50, 1.37]) and OS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.37, 1.29]) numerically favored A but the difference was not significant. The A vs V+O comparison did not show significant differences in PFS (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.56, 1.65] and OS (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.51, 1.91]). For A+O vs I, significant differences in PFS (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.27, 0.88]) and OS (HR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18, 0.91]) were observed. Similarly, for A+O vs V+O, significant differences were observed for PFS (HR 0.38 [95% CI 0.20, 0.73]) and OS (HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.19, 0.99]). Significant differences in rate of grade ≥3 AEs in favor of A and A+O were observed vs I for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, decreased neutrophil count, and decreased platelet count. Compared with V+O, patients treated with A had significantly lower rates of febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, non-melanoma skin cancer, and secondary primary malignancies, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. For A+O vs V+O, significantly lower rates of infusion-related reaction, neutropenia, and non-melanoma skin cancer were observed among patients treated with A+O. Conclusions: Based on these MAIC results, A and A+O are associated with a favorable safety profile vs both I and V+O while, with longer follow-up, these MAIC results demonstrate that A+O is associated with a significant efficacy benefit vs both I and V+O. A limitation of this MAIC is not including all potential PVs as a trade-off to conserve the effective sample size. Our findings are consistent with the results of ELEVATE-RR comparing A with I in the relapsed population and also provide insight into comparisons of A-based therapy with V+O as we await more definitive prospective data on this question from a phase 3 trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Davids: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Emeribe: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Gaitonde: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Research Funding. Cai: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Google: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene Corporation: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

Background: Acalabrutinib (Acala) is a next-generation, highly selective, covalent BTK inhibitor (BTKi) approved for the treatment of CLL. The phase 3 ASCEND study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with Acala vs investigator's choice of chemoimmunotherapy (bendamustine + rituximab [BR]) or pi3K inhibitor (idelalisib) + rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients (pts) (Ghia et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020). In ELEVATE-RR, Acala demonstrated non-inferior PFS vs a first-generation BTKi (ibrutinib [Ibr]) in R/R CLL pts with high-risk genomics (Byrd et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021). Acala was well tolerated in both trials. Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis balances risks (toxicity) and benefits (prolonged survival without symptoms of disease progression or adverse events [AEs]) of oncology treatments. We conducted a Q-TWiST analysis using data from these trials to assess risk-benefit of Acala vs comparators among R/R CLL pts. Methods: Patient survival time with 16 months (ASCEND) and 41 months (ELEVATE-RR) of median follow-up data were partitioned into 3 states: time with toxicity before disease progression (TOX); time without progression or toxicity (TWiST); and time from disease progression until death or end of follow-up (relapse [REL]). Toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 AEs and, for the comparison vs Ibr, an additional definition of toxicity included AEs of any grade with frequency ≥10% (AE ≥10%). Sensitivity analyses with toxicity defined as grade 2-4 AEs will be presented. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for TOX, PFS, and overall survival (OS). For the TOX curve, event time for each pt was calculated by summing days with AEs (per toxicity definition) before disease progression, with no pt censored. Restricted means were calculated for the longest PFS time among treatment arms. Restricted mean TWiST duration was estimated using the difference between restricted means of PFS and TOX. Restricted mean REL duration was estimated using the difference between restricted means of OS and PFS. Q-TWiST was calculated by summing weighted restricted mean durations of TOX, TWiST, and REL. Utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL (Gelber et al. Am Statistician. 1995) were applied. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using utility measures from trial data. Two-sided p Results: Among Acala vs IR/BR-treated pts, significantly longer duration of TWiST (mean diff, 3.58 months [95% CI, 2.42, 4.74]) and shorter duration of REL (mean diff, −2.51 months [95% CI, −3.50, −1.60]) and TOX (mean diff, −0.73 months [95% CI, −1.24, −0.24]) were found, indicating Acala vs IR/BR-treated pts had longer time without disease progression and toxicity and shorter time with toxicity. Q-TWiST was significantly different (1.96 months [95% CI, 1.13, 2.81]) between Acala (17.48 months) and IR/BR (15.52 months). In the Acala and Ibr comparison, differences in durations of TWiST and TOX varied based on the toxicity definition while the difference in REL durations remained consistent (mean diff, 0.37 months [95% CI, −1.82, 2.60]; p=0.33]). With the toxicity definition of AE ≥10%, Q-TWiST was significantly different (2.56 months [95% CI, 0.19, 4.83]) for Acala (33.02 months) vs Ibr (30.46 months). When toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 AEs, Q-TWiST had higher estimates for Acala but the difference was not statistically significant (1.28 months [95% CI, −1.34, 3.80]). In the sensitivity analysis, Q-TWiST gains were not statistically significant, most likely because the study was not designed to collect EQ-5D data post-treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Q-TWiST analyses integrate efficacy, safety, and quality of life into a more appropriate measure useful for detailed benefit-risk assessment of cancer treatment. This analysis demonstrated that Acala treatment is significantly superior to IR/BR treatment. Quality-adjusted survival gains of Acala over Ibr varied by toxicity definition, but was numerically higher for Acala. Overall, Acala demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile vs different comparators in R/R CLL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Seymour: Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaitonde: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Research Funding. Emeribe: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Cai: Celgene Corporation: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Google: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mato: Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy.

The pharmacy residency selection process is a complex one using both quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess the applicant. Though some literature exists about desired characteristics of an ideal applicant from a program perspective, little data exist about the student characteristics that predict a successful match. The objective of this study was to determine if match applicant demographics, pre-admission standardized test scores, and academic performance in pharmacy school affect match rate. This study was conducted at a large public school of pharmacy in the USA. Post-Graduate Year 1 (PGY1) residency match data and student characteristics were obtained over a 6-year time period. PGY1 match success per year was calculated as a proportion of students who were successfully matched in that year out of all the active applicants. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the impact of student characteristics on match rate. Student characteristics influencing a successful residency match. In the multivariable analysis, PCAT-Chemistry (OR = 0.979, p = 0.0455), PCAT-Reading Comprehension (OR = 1.012, p = 0.0428), and final grade point average (OR = 9.847, p

Introduction: Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, irreversible, next-generation, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) approved for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Acalabrutinib and ibrutinib are the only BTKis approved for the treatment of CLL, although acalabrutinib's minimal off-target effects may offer additional efficacy and safety benefits. ELEVATE-TN, a 3-arm, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (N=535 patients), found that acalabrutinib (as monotherapy or in combination with obinutuzumab) had superior efficacy and safety compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (C+O) for the frontline treatment of patients with CLL who were considered ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment because of age and comorbidity status. Countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) do not currently reimburse BTKi costs when used for the frontline treatment of CLL, except for patients with 17p deletions/TP53 mutations. Payers in these markets require evidence of cost-effectiveness, relative to the standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy, for BTKi costs to be reimbursed in a broader frontline population. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness-from a UK National Health Service perspective-of acalabrutinib monotherapy compared to C+O in the frontline treatment of patients with CLL who are considered ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment. Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed, comprised of 3 health-state selections: progression-free survival (PFS), progressed disease, and death. ELEVATE-TN patient-level data were used to fit parametric survival functions to time-to-progression, preprogression-death, and postprogression-survival curves over a lifetime horizon of 30 years. Age- and gender-matched general population mortality rates were applied to ensure that the mortality rate in the modeled population never fell below that of the general population. Health-state utility data using EQ-5D scores were derived from published literature. Cost inputs included drug costs (list prices only), administration costs, subsequent-treatment costs, and adverse-event costs, and were sourced from relevant literature, including the British National Formulary, national reference costs, and UK CLL health technology assessment submissions. Subsequent treatment with ibrutinib was assumed in patients who experienced disease progression after C+O treatment, while patients who received acalabrutinib and had disease progression received rituximab in combination with venetoclax or bendamustine. Clinical validation was sought on model assumptions. A 3.5% discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ≤ £30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Results: Over a 30-year lifetime horizon, treatment with acalabrutinib monotherapy resulted in a gain of 1.14 QALYs versus C+O, while incurring incremental costs of £34 974, resulting in an ICER of £30 701 per QALY (Table). While acalabrutinib treatment resulted in higher treatment costs than C+O because of the longer duration of treatment from improved PFS, these costs were partially offset by lower subsequent treatment costs and fewer adverse events compared with C+O. The key model drivers included the proportion of patients who received subsequent treatment with ibrutinib or venetoclax and the BTKi list price. Conclusions: Our analysis found that in a UK setting, acalabrutinib monotherapy was marginally cost-effective when compared with chemoimmunotherapy. This assessment of acalabrutinib provides useful information to payers for decision making among the frontline treatment options for the patient with CLL who is not eligible for fludarabine-based treatment. Disclosures Munir: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Other: Medical writing support, furnished by Scott Battle, PhD, of Health Interactions, was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland; Alexion: Honoraria. Gaitonde:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Other: stocks and share. Waweru:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Other: stocks and share.

Objective Comorbid depression among patients with diabetes is associated with an increased disease burden, healthcare utilization and adverse outcomes. However, little is known about how comorbid depression in older adults with diabetes affects diabetes treatment success. This study investigates the association between comorbid depression, diabetes-related self-care behaviors and blood glucose control among older Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. Methods This pooled cross-sectional study used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) data for years 2006, 2008 and 2010. Depression was categorized into mild/episodic and moderate/severe. We defined levels of treatment success based on gradients of blood glucose control: all the time to little/none of the time. We used ordered-logit regression models for analyses. Key findings Among the study population of older Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes (n = 2418), 6.2% had episodic/mild depression and 7.9% had moderate/severe depression. Low frequency of performing self-check for blood glucose or sores on feet was not associated with either mild/episodic depression (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.33)/(OR = 0.98; CI, 0.69 to 1.39) or moderate/severe depression (OR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.66)/(OR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.4) respectively. Patients with mild/episodic depression were more likely to reach blood glucose control little/none of the time, as compared to those with no comorbid depression (OR = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.26). Conclusions Comorbid mild/episodic depression is associated with low treatment success among older Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes; however, neither levels of comorbid depression are associated with regularity in performing self-care behavior.

Introduction The literature is limited related to school of pharmacy (SOP) characteristics that may impact a student's residency match success. Given the paucity of information, the aim of our study was to examine the association between multiple school specific characteristics and Post-Graduate Year 1 (PGY1) residency match rate. Methods PGY1 residency match data and SOP specific characteristics were obtained. The median aggregate match rate was used to categorize programs as high or low match rate. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the impact of SOP characteristics on match rate. Results Median match rates were 64% (2013), 63.25% (2014), and 64.25% (2015). Schools with >95% North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination® (NAPLEX®) pass rate and >15 funded faculty were more likely to have a high match rate. Private schools were less likely to have a high match rate when compared to public programs. Conclusion SOP characteristics associated with a high likelihood of a successful PGY1 residency match were greater than 95% of NAPLEX® pass rate, more than 15 funded faculty members, and public school status.

Purpose: Each of the participating patient-centered medical home (PCMH) received coaching and participated in learning collaborative for improving teamwork. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of trainings on patient-centered teamwork. Methods: The Teamwork Perception Questionnaire (TPQ) was administered once in spring 2014 and then in fall 2015. The TPQ consists of 35 questions across 5 domains: mutual support, situation monitoring, communication, team structure, and leadership. Based on our objective we compared the frequencies of strongly agree/agree by domain. The difference was tested using chi-square test. We compared the scores on each domain (strongly agree/agree = 1; maximum score = 7) via Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: The response rate for this survey was n = 29 (80.6%) in spring 2014, and n = 31 (86.1%) in fall 2015. We found that the practice members significantly ( P < .05) strongly agreed/agreed more in fall 2015 than spring 2014 for characteristics—“staff relay relevant information in a timely manner” (64.5% vs 83.9%) and “staff follow a standardized method of sharing information when handing off patients” (67.7% vs 90.3%) under communication domain and for characteristic—“staff within my practice share information that enables timely decision making” (74.2% vs 90.3%). However, there was no statistical significant difference observed in the scores for the overall TPQ at the 2 time points. Conclusion: Despite the statistical insignificance, the observations in PCMHs across the spectrum of practices participating in the Maryland Multi-Payer Program demonstrated enhanced teamwork specifically in communication and in leadership. This we believe will continue to result in enhanced patient access to care and safety.