BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of biologics have demonstrated reduced exacerbations, decreased use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and improvements in daily symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). OBJECTIVE: To compare direct health care costs associated with biologic use for the treatment of SEA from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: We developed a cost-minimization model to compare costs and cost offsets associated with 3 biologics-benralizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-for 2- and 4-year periods. The model relied on longitudinal data from clinical trials to inform the primary (base case) analysis cost comparison and RWE study data, in a separate scenario, to compare costs in nonclinical trial settings. Primary model outcomes included exacerbations (including hospitalizations), OCS-dependent years (including associated complications), and total direct health care biologic costs. Results were calculated at the per patient and population level (per 1,000 patients). Sensitivity analyses with key model parameters were performed. RESULTS: Benralizumab had the lowest total biologic costs per patient for both the 2- and 4-year periods. Over 4 years, the marginal cost difference in total biologic costs per patient was $23,061 lower for benralizumab vs mepolizumab and $17,242 lower for benralizumab vs dupilumab. The 4-year population level analysis of benralizumab vs mepolizumab revealed $4.8 million in marginal cost offsets due to 582 fewer exacerbations and 153 fewer OCS-dependent years and a marginal total cost savings of $27.9 million per 1,000 patients for benralizumab. The 4-year population level analysis of benralizumab vs dupilumab revealed $2.3 million in marginal cost offsets due to 291 fewer exacerbations and 64 fewer OCS-dependent years and marginal total cost savings of $19.5 million per 1,000 patients for benralizumab. RWE data were available for a 2-year cost comparison scenario of benralizumab vs mepolizumab, which showed similar results to the base case analysis. Sensitivity analyses varying assumptions on key model parameter estimates confirmed results, with benralizumab having lower total direct health care costs in all scenarios tested, and showed that model results were most sensitive to changes in biologic costs and exacerbation reduction rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving benralizumab had higher nonbiologic cost offsets because of reductions in exacerbations and OCS-dependent years, leading to greater cost savings for third-party payers compared with patients receiving mepolizumab or dupilumab. Taken together with biologic costs, benralizumab presents greater savings in health care costs for payers than patients with SEA who use mepolizumab or dupilumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK). Drs Xu, Chung, Genofre, and Katial are or were AstraZeneca employees at the time this research was conducted and may be shareholders of AstraZeneca. Ms Schaefer and Dr Szende are employees of Labcorp Drug Development, which received funding from AstraZeneca to perform this research.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis may require treatment with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD). Often, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the initial b/tsDMARD. The TNFi may not be effective or may not be well tolerated, so patients will opt for a different TNFi or switch to a non-TNFi b/tsDMARD. No preference for a TNFi or non-TNFi has been established and guidelines are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness by comparing patients using a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi after initial use of TNFi based on treatment patterns and health care utilization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plan, Medicaid, and commercial plan claims data from Humana's Research Database (Louisville, KY). The first claim for TNFi or non-TNFi (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018) following earlier TNFi was the index date. Patients were required to have pre-index enrollment of 6 months and 12 months post-index along with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or psoriasis. During the 12-month follow-up, persistence to the index TNFi or non-TNFi was measured as continued therapy without a gap exceeding 45 days (81 days for intravenous infusions). Adherence was proportion of days covered at least 0.8. Addition of a nonbiologic DMARD or corticosteroid was also identified. Inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were observed. Inverse probability of treatment weights was used to balance cohorts. Logistic regression models were fit to TNFi vs non-TNFI on treatment and utilization measures. RESULTS: Of identified patients, 1,022 were indexed to a second TNFi and 1,024 were indexed to non-TNFi. Weighted cohorts were balanced, with mean age 56.5 vs 56.4 years, 70.5% vs 70.7% female sex, and 68.0% vs 67.9% MAPD plan. No differences were observed on persistence or adherence, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.91-1.20) and 1.04 (0.91-1.20), respectively. No differences were observed for changes in therapy via switching to another TNFi/non-TNFi (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.54-1.62), via nonbiologic DMARD addition (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.83-1.11), or corticosteroid addition (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.92-1.88). No differences were observed for hospitalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.99-1.37) or emergency department visits (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.89-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi. As a result, choice of TNFi or non-TNFi following an initial TNFi may be driven by relevant patient-specific considerations. At the population level, policies that prefer either TNFi or non-TNFi appear reasonable. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Humana Inc. Mr Racsa is an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc. Drs Asante and Bloomfield are employees of Humana Inc. Dr Schwab was an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc., and is now an employee of RTI Health Solutions. Dr Cornett was an employee of Humana Inc. and is now an employee of ImmunoGen Inc.

The AMCP Board of Directors appointed a Task Force on Leadership Development in 2021 with the charge to recommend a volunteer leadership structure that aligns with AMCP's contemporary needs and fosters the development of future Board members. Based on the Task Force's recommendations and with input from AMCP members, the AMCP Board of Directors amended AMCP's governance model in early 2023. The most notable changes involve the process for electing AMCP Board members and officers, which will be implemented for the 2024-25 election. The goal of the new election process is to assemble an effective Board with diverse experiences and complementary skills and attributes that will continue to lead AMCP into the future. In this viewpoint article, we share insights into the steps that led to these governance changes.

BACKGROUND: Medication costs for antidiabetic drugs have risen significantly in the United States, causing concerns about the affordability of these essential treatments. OBJECTIVE: To examine out-of-pocket spending for antidiabetic medication and evaluate what proportion of Americans reach catastrophic spending levels during the year. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of nationally representative data from the 2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was analyzed for respondents that reported a diabetes diagnosis. Prescription drug costs were identified from the MEPS Prescribed Medicines File, which included both total prescription payment and out-of-pocket payment for each medication fill. Catastrophic spending thresholds were evaluated based on the World Health Organization's definition, which is spending greater than 40% of a household's nonsubsistence income on health care payments. Statistical analysis was performed with Stata 17 and sample weights were applied adjusting for the MEPS complex survey design to produce national estimates. Descriptive statistics were reported as weighted counts and percentages for categorical variables and as medians with interquartile range for continuous variables. Comparisons of reaching catastrophic spending thresholds across study variables were evaluated with Pearson chi-square tests. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study. RESULTS: The study included data from a weighted US population of 29.5 million Americans with diabetes. Among this group, 23.8 million (81%) reported use of a prescription medication to treat diabetes. Total reported out-of-pocket payments paid by the patient for antidiabetic medication surpassed $5.2 billion with the largest portion attributable to the insulin subclass, which accounted for 42% or $2.2 billion. The data suggest an estimated 3 million Americans (10.3%) experienced out-of-pocket spending for antidiabetic drugs that reached catastrophic spending thresholds in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Affordability of prescribed medication in community-dwelling persons with diabetes remains a significant challenge for many Americans.

BACKGROUND: It is not well understood in literature what the time spent between health care professionals, including pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and pharmaceutical field specialists equates to in terms of changes in productivity or lost time, the educational value provided, or the nature of the resources provided in terms of improving patient care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the volume of, and time spent in, pharmaceutical field representative (PFR) meetings by members of an integrated specialty pharmacy team at a large academic medical center. METHODS: A 16-item survey tool used skip and branching logic comprising binary, multiple-choice, multiple-select, and open-ended items was distributed to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians at a health-system specialty pharmacy on the south side of Chicago, Illinois. The survey assessed locations of interactions with PFR, who initiated the request, reason for interaction, time spent, whether the participant felt the interaction provided value, and whether it contributed to them working a longer shift or compromising time spent on patient care that day. RESULTS: There were a total of 108 responses. Of those, 44 responses documented having an interaction with a PFR, and the remaining responses indicated no interaction that week. Only 5 (11.4%) of the interactions were pharmacy team member initiated. Among the pharmacy team member-initiated meetings, all respondents stated that the interaction had provided value, and none reported that it led to a longer workday. Conversely, of the 36 pharmaceutical representative-initiated interactions, 15 (41.6%) found value and 5 (13.8%) said that their workday was elongated because of these interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the majority of encounters taking place between our specialty pharmacy team members and PFRs did not result in knowledge gained or provision of tools and resources to support our patients. The next steps include 3 specific proposed changes to how our team responds to meeting requests from PFRs, specifically aimed at reducing pipeline presentations, reducing meetings pertaining to limited distribution drugs not accessible to the specialty pharmacy, and reducing meetings with the intent of introduction or pass off of contacts between PFRs.

The AMCP Poster Abstract Program provides a forum for authors to share their research with the managed care pharmacy community. Authors submit their abstracts to AMCP, and each abstract is reviewed by a team of peer reviewers and editors. All accepted abstracts are presented as posters at AMCP's Annual and Nexus meetings. These abstracts are also available through the AMCP meeting app. This JMCP supplement publishes all abstracts that were peer reviewed and accepted for presentation at AMCP NEXUS 2023. Abstracts submitted in the Student and Encore categories did not undergo peer review; therefore, these abstracts are not included in the supplement.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence plays an important role for patients living with HIV and achieving the treatment goal of viral suppression. A goal adherence rate of at least 90% has been previously cited and endorsed; however, studies have demonstrated that lower rates of adherence may still lead to high rates of viral suppression. Adherence rates are increasingly being used by payers to assess pharmacy performance. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in the odds of achieving viral suppression with a proportion of days covered (PDC) at least 90% compared with patients with lower PDC levels. Additionally, to determine if demographic factors, including age, ethnicity, sex, primary antiretroviral regimen type, payer type, primary pharmacy location, and refill assistance program enrollment, impact the odds of achieving viral suppression. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included patients who were aged 18 years or older; were diagnosed with HIV; had at least 2 occurrences of dispensed antiretrovirals between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, within the health system; and had at least 1 HIV-RNA viral load recorded between these dates. PDC was calculated at the generic product identifier (GPI) level. For patients receiving multiple GPIs in this period, a weighted average PDC was calculated. A logistic regression analysis was performed, and odds ratios were calculated with 95% confidence for each demographic factor to determine correlation with viral suppression. RESULTS: 1,629 patients were included. Overall, 1,516 (93.1%) patients were virally suppressed. 106 (6.5%) patients had a PDC lower than 50% and 639 (39.2%) had a PDC of at least 90%. Of the patients with a PDC lower than 50%, 80 (75.5%) achieved viral suppression as did 617 (96.6%) patients with a PDC of at least 90%. Age and insurance type significantly impacted viral suppression. No statistically significant difference was found between the odds of achieving viral suppression until PDC was below 75%. Patients with a PDC of less than 50% or a PDC of 50% to less than 75% were less likely to achieve viral suppression than patients with a PDC of at least 90% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with adherence rates above 75% achieve similar results compared with patients with adherence rates above 90%. High population viral suppression may be achieved with as few as 39.2% of patients achieving a PDC greater than 90%. Using these results, the Pharmacy Quality Alliance and other guidance setting entities should consider lowering the at least 90% threshold as well as providing further guidance on how payers should use results and network benchmarking when creating pharmacy quality performance measures.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

BACKGROUND: Research conducted in 2017 by Runyan et al concerning the current and future management of oncology drugs in the United States formed the basis for this research. The authors concluded that despite the high cost of oncology drugs, US payers relied on traditional management tools to manage the category, although these tools were ineffective at controlling costs. Innovative tools were not common in 2017. OBJECTIVE: To compare findings from the 2017 research with findings from a 2022 payer survey to understand how payer management of oncology drugs changed over 5 years. The study evaluates changing trends in oncology drug management. METHODS: The survey that informed the publication by Runyan et al in 2017 was reviewed, updated, and completed by 21 pharmacy and medical directors across 18 organizations representing 121.9 million covered lives. Both surveys included questions about management tools being employed in oncology and challenges to managing oncology. They used case studies in non-small cell lung cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. These disease areas were chosen again in 2022 because they were included in the 2017 survey and because of the increase in competition in both categories from 2017 to 2022. The payer sample was designed to match the 2017 sample. The research was fielded from March to May 2022. The results were analyzed in Microsoft Excel; basic statistical analysis was conducted. Payers' responses for each question were weighted by the number of reported covered lives at their organization so that the organization's site was represented. RESULTS: On average, payers rated the management priority of oncology as a 5.3 and the budget impact as a 6.3 on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 was low and 7 was high. Traditional tools remain dominant in this therapeutic area. However, there has been an increase in use of innovative tools. Pathways of care are trending upward since the initial survey in 2017. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) also influences payers' decision-making in oncology more than it did 5 years ago. Despite these shifts, most payers allow for unrestricted access of targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in line with each drug's US Food and Drug Administration-approved label. CONCLUSIONS: The increased use of pathways of care, shifting financial risk to providers, and the influence of ICER should continue to be monitored. Future research should focus on the role of pathways of care, comprehensive, evidence-based treatment protocols, in influencing prescribing decisions of hematologists and oncologists. DISCLOSURES: The authors work for Envision Pharma Group (formerly Two Labs), a company that provides consulting services to the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. As such, clients in these industries pay Envision Pharma Group for their services. This study was funded independently by Envision Pharma Group.