Treatment intensification with bempedoic acid to achieve LDL-C goal in patients with ASCVD: A simulation model using a real-world patient cohort in the US.

Background and aims: Guidelines recommend that high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) be treated with maximally tolerated statins to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. In patients whose LDL-C remains elevated, non-statin adjunct therapies, including ezetimibe (EZE), bempedoic acid (BA), and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors are recommended. Methods: The impact of BA and EZE in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) on LDL-C goal attainment was evaluated using a simulation model developed for a United States cohort of high-risk adults with ASCVD. Treatment was simulated for 73,056 patients not at goal (LDL-C >70 mg/dL), comparing BA + EZE (FDC), EZE only, and no oral adjunct therapy (NOAT). The addition of PCSK9 inibitors was assumed after 1 year in patients not at LDL-C goal. Treatment efficacy was estimated from clinical trials. Patient-level outcomes were predicted over a 10-year horizon accounting for treatment discontinuation and general mortality. Results: Baseline mean age of the cohort was 67 years, most were White (79%) and male (56%). A majority had established coronary artery disease (75%), 48% had diabetes, and mean LDL-C was 103.0 mg/dL. After 1 year, 79% of patients achieved LDL-C goal (mean, 61.1 mg/dL) with BA + EZE (FDC) compared to 58% and 42% with EZE (71.7 mg/dL) and NOAT (78.4 mg/dL), respectively. Conclusions: This simulation shows that adding BA + EZE (FDC) to maximally tolerated statins would result in more patients achieving LDL-C goal than adding EZE alone or NOAT.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, 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, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, 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, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The effectiveness and value of targeted immune modulators for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

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. Pandey, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER related to this study and reports other support from the CEA Registry Sponsors and consulting and advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, the Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, unrelated to this work. Bloudek reports grants from ICER related to this work and reports fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, TerSera Therapeutics, and Incyte, unrelated to this work. Carlson reports grants from ICER related to this work.

The Intersection of Food Insecurity and Tobacco Use: A Scoping Review.

Cigarette smoking is increasingly concentrated in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and food insecurity also disproportionately affects lower-income groups. Recent studies have suggested that smoking and food insecurity operate as risk factors for one another, but there is limited understanding of their intersection. This scoping review aimed to synthesize the published literature on the association between food insecurity and tobacco use across population groups in the United States and Canada. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO using key words. Studies included were published in English between 2008 and 2018, reported empirical findings, measured both tobacco use and food insecurity, and considered either variable as a study outcome. Nineteen articles were identified; 6 examined tobacco use as an outcome variable and 13 examined food insecurity as an outcome variable. Most articles were of studies using cross-sectional designs. Study samples ranged from general populations, clinical samples, and underserved populations. For each article, we extracted information including specific findings related to the association between food insecurity and tobacco use. We synthesized the current research by formulating a model by which food insecurity and tobacco use are bidirectionally associated. This scoping review concludes that the co-occurrence of food insecurity and tobacco use exists across populations in the United States and Canada. As the evidence is largely from cross-sectional investigations, there is a need for longer term, comprehensive assessments of relationships between tobacco use and food insecurity. Such investigations can inform policies and interventions aimed toward addressing the inequitable burden of tobacco use and of food insecurity among disadvantaged populations.

Psychological distress and cigarette smoking among U.S. households by income: Considering the role of food insecurity.

Psychological distress and tobacco use are known to co-occur for many reasons, including vulnerabilities associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. Food insecurity-a stressful condition due to inconsistent food access-is linked with increased psychological distress and is also an independent risk factor for smoking. We investigated the association between psychological distress and cigarette smoking, examining distress occurring with or without food insecurity, and variations in the associations by socioeconomic status. We analyzed data from the 2015 U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics (n = 9048). A four-category variable was constructed based on responses to validated measures of psychological distress and of food insecurity: no distress and no food insecurity; food insecurity without distress; distress without food insecurity; and distress with food insecurity. Weighted, robust Poisson regression analysis examined associations with current smoking, with analyses stratified by socioeconomic status. Smoking prevalence was highest among respondents experiencing psychological distress with food insecurity (39%). Results showed that respondents with food insecurity alone had higher smoking prevalence (33%) than respondents with psychological distress alone (20%). Only among respondents above poverty, psychological distress without food insecurity was significantly associated with current smoking (prevalence ratio = 1.44; 95% CI [1.25, 1.65]). For respondents at/below poverty, psychological distress without food insecurity was not significantly associated with current smoking. Further examining how socioeconomic stressors, such as food insecurity, intersect with psychological distress is needed to address continued socioeconomic disparities in cigarette smoking and develop effective population-based interventions.