A framework for evaluating the diversity of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The topic of diversity in clinical trials is rising to the forefront of many conversations in evidence-based medicine, and efforts are being made to improve the diversity of clinical trials. However, there is little uniformity in the methods used to evaluate these efforts. In this article, we describe our Clinical trial Diversity Rating (CDR) framework and the development process, including the broader considerations for evaluating the demographic diversity of clinical trials and their implications, and demonstrate its use through an illustrative example. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of the framework was a four-step process, including a scoping review, a cross-sectional study, creation of the tool, and integration of feedback from an advisory group. RESULTS: Our scoping review identified 110 publications that examined clinical trial diversity. Race/ethnicity, sex, and age were the most common characteristics evaluated. About 85% clearly defined the benchmark used for evaluation, but less than half (48%) used disease prevalence as the benchmark. Only 64% of studies defined what would be considered adequate representation. The cross-sectional study, which applied some of the approaches identified in the literature, helped to identify the complexities of evaluating multinational trials and certain demographic characteristics. Key decisions for the CDR framework, such as the demographic characteristics to be evaluated, the benchmark and thresholds for evaluation, and how these factors contribute to the overall rating of clinical trial diversity, were informed by the two earlier phases and feedback from an advisory group. CONCLUSION: The CDR framework provides an objective and transparent approach to evaluating clinical trial diversity. Groups such as Health Technology Assessment bodies, clinical trial regulators, policymakers, journal editors, and individual researchers can use this tool to examine, monitor, and improve diversity in clinical trials.

Oral and monoclonal antibody treatments for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis: Effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Ms McKenna, Dr Lin, Dr Whittington, Mr Nikitin, Ms Herron-Smith, Dr Campbell, and Dr Peterson report grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, and grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, and other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

Evaluation of Diversity of Clinical Trials Informing Health Technology Assessments in the United States: A 5-Year Analysis of Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diversity of clinical trials informing assessments conducted by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of pivotal trials included in completed Institute for Clinical and Economic Review assessments over 5 years (2017-2021). Representation of racial/ethnic minority groups, females, and older adults was compared with the disease-specific and US population, using a relative representation cutoff of 0.8 for adequate representation. RESULTS: A total of 208 trials, evaluating 112 interventions for 31 unique conditions, were examined. Race/ethnicity data were inconsistently reported. The median participant-to-disease representative ratio (PDRR) for Blacks/African Americans (0.43 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.24-0.75]), American Indians/Alaska Natives (0.37 [IQR 0.09-0.77]), and Hispanics/Latinos (0.79 [IQR 0.30-1.22]) were below the adequate representation cutoff. In contrast, Whites (1.06 [IQR 0.92-1.2]), Asians (1.71 [IQR 0.50-3.75]), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders (1.61 [IQR 0.77-2.81]) were adequately represented. Findings were similar when compared with the US Census, except for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, which was substantially worse. Relative to all trials, a higher proportion of US-based trials adequately represented Blacks/African Americans (61% vs 23%, P < .0001) and Hispanics/Latinos (68% vs 50%; P = .047), but a lower proportion adequately represented Asians (15% vs 67%, P < .0001). Females were adequately represented in 74% of trials (PDRR: 1.02 [IQR 0.79-1.14]). Nevertheless, older adults were adequately represented in only 20% of trials (PDRR: 0.30 [IQR 0.13-0.64]). CONCLUSIONS: The representation of racial/ethnic minorities and older adults was inadequate. Efforts are needed to enhance the diversity of clinical trials. Standardized and transparent evaluation of trial diversity should be part of the health technology assessment process.

The effectiveness and value of gene therapy for hemophilia: A Summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's California Technology Assessment Forum.

DISCLOSURES: Dr Tice and Mr Sarker received ICER grants during the conduct of the study. Dr Moradi, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Dr Faghim, Dr Agboola, Dr Rind, and Dr Pearson reports grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from Aetna, other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from Cambia Health Services, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Health Partners, other from Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from Spark Therapeutics, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Belimumab and Voclosporin for Patients with Lupus Nephritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite existing therapies, people with lupus nephritis progress to kidney failure and have reduced life expectancy. Belimumab and voclosporin are two new disease-modifying therapies recently approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, including the following health states: "complete response," "partial response," and "active disease" defined by eGFR and proteinuria changes, kidney failure, and death. Short-term data and mean cohort characteristics were sourced from pivotal clinical trials of belimumab (the Belimumab International Study in Lupus Nephritis) and voclosporin (the Aurinia Urinary Protection Reduction Active-Lupus with Voclosporin trial and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin). Risk of mortality and kidney failure were on the basis of survival modeling using published Kaplan-Meier data. Each drug was compared with the standard of care as represented by the comparator arm in its respective pivotal trial(s) using US health care sector perspective, with a societal perspective also explored. RESULTS: In the health care perspective probabilistic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab compared with its control arm was estimated to be approximately $95,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The corresponding incremental ratio for voclosporin compared with its control arm was approximately $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Compared with their respective standard care arms, the probabilities of belimumab and voclosporin being cost effective at a threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year were 69% and 49%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival in response states, costs and utilities in active disease, and the utilities in response states. In the analysis from a societal perspective, the incremental ratio for belimumab was estimated to be approximately $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental ratio for voclosporin was estimated to be approximately $133,000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their respective standard care arms, belimumab but not voclosporin met willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Despite potential clinical superiority in the informing trials, there remains high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin.

The effectiveness and value of eculizumab and efgartigimod for generalized myasthenia gravis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Nikitin, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Touchette, and Lien received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

JAK inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

The effectiveness and value of bempedoic acid and inclisiran for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, McKenna, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Lin and Kazi received funding from ICER for work on this report.

The effectiveness and value of emicizumab and valoctocogene roxaparvovec for the management of hemophilia A without inhibitors.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Rind, Herron-Smith, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Walton and Quach, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this report.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

The Effectiveness and Value of Deflazacort and Exon-Skipping Therapies for the Management of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Fluetsch, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Lin reports support from ICER during work on this economic model and grants from Mount Zion Health Fund, National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), and the Tobacco-Related Diseases Research Program, unrelated to this work. Walton reports support from ICER for work on this economic model and unrelated consulting fees from Baxter.

The Authors Respond.

DISCLOSURES: The writing of the original report referred to in this letter was sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of the original work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

The Effectiveness and Value of Esketamine for the Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management, California Health Care Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AstraZeneca, Allergan, Alnylam, Biogen, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Services, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthPartners, HealthFirst, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of this work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Impact of Abuse Deterrent Formulations of Opioids in Patients With Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Model.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid abuse is a significant public health problem in the United States. We evaluate the clinical effectiveness and economic impact of abuse-deterrent formulations (ADF) of opioids relative to non-ADF opioids in preventing abuse. METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model simulating 2 cohorts of 100 000 noncancer, chronic-pain patients newly prescribed either ADF or non-ADF extended-release (ER) opioids and followed them over 5 years, tracking new events of opioid abuse and opioid-related overdose deaths in addition to tracking 5-year cumulative costs of therapeutic use and abuse of ADF and non-ADF opioids. Patients in each cohort entered the model for therapeutic opioid use from where they could continue in that pathway, discontinue opioid use, or abuse opioids or die of opioid overdose-related or unrelated causes. In addition, one-way sensitivity and scenario analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Over a 5-year time period, using ADF opioids prevented an additional 2300 new cases of opioid abuse at an additional cost of approximately $535 million to the healthcare sector. Threshold analyses showed that a 40% decrease in ADF opioid costs was required to attain cost neutrality between the 2 cohorts, whereas a 100% effectiveness in abuse reduction still did not result in cost neutrality. A 43% decrease in diversion with ADFs relative to non-ADFs was required to attain cost neutrality. Including a societal perspective produced results directionally similar to the base-case analysis findings. CONCLUSION: ADF opioids have the potential to prevent new cases of opioid abuse, but at substantially higher costs to the health system.