RESUMEN
Background: Over the last 25 years, clinical practice guidelines have emerged as a means to standardize and improve care. As pharmaceutical innovations develop, guidelines are updated to incorporate new interventions. However, the extent to which pharmacotherapies are represented as treatment options in guideline recommendations has not been well elucidated. This study aimed to quantify the role pharmacotherapy has played in clinical practice guidelines across a range of chronic diseases over the past 20 years. Methods: Clinical practice guidelines published from 2000 to 2021 were identified for five chronic diseases: ischemic heart disease (IHD), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Guidelines were reviewed and data on treatment recommendations were collected, including the type of intervention, line of therapy, and, for pharmacotherapies, year of regulatory approval and year of inclusion in guidelines. Results: In total, 92 clinical practice guidelines were reviewed. Among the 184 discrete recommended interventions across the five disease areas, 146 (79.3%) were pharmacotherapies, 21 (11.4%) were behavioral modifications, 6 (3.3%) were surgical interventions, and 11 (6%) were other interventions. Across guidelines, when a line of therapy was specified, behavioral modifications and pharmacotherapies were most frequently recommended as first-line interventions, whereas surgical interventions were more often recommended for subsequent lines of treatment. The time from regulatory approval of novel pharmacotherapies to inclusion in guideline recommendations varied considerably by disease area and geography. Conclusions: Across the reviewed disease areas, behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapies are shown to be critical components of clinical practice. Over the last 20 years, novel pharmaceutical innovations have been incorporated into clinical practice guideline recommendations; however, with varying speeds of adoption. Given the increasing pace of pharmacologic innovation, timely updates of clinical practice guidelines are critical to evolving the standard of care and practicing evidence-based medicine.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Crónica , Preparaciones FarmacéuticasRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To characterize treatment decision-making processes and formalize consensus regarding key factors headache specialists consider in treatment decisions for patients with migraine, considering novel therapies. BACKGROUND: Migraine therapies have long been subject to binary classification, acute versus preventive, due to limitations of available drugs. The emergence of novel therapies that can be used more flexibly creates an opportunity to rethink this binary classification. To determine the role of these novel therapies in treatment, it is critical to understand whether existing guidelines reflect clinical practice and to establish consensus around factors driving management. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted with migraine clinical experts. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; Round 2 involved an online discussion of aggregated Round 1 results; and Round 3 allowed participants to revise Round 1 responses, incorporating Round 2 insights. Questions elicited likelihood ratings (0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely), rankings, and estimates on treatment decision-making. RESULTS: Nineteen experts completed three Delphi rounds. Experts strongly agreed on definitions for "acute" (median = 100, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 5) and "preventive" treatment (median = 90, IQR = 15), but noted a need for treatment customization for patients (median = 100, IQR = 6). Experts noted certain aspects of guidelines may no longer apply based on established tolerability and efficacy of newer acute and preventive agents (median = 91, IQR = 17). Further, experts agreed on a treatment category referred to as "situational prevention" (or "short-term prevention") for patients with reliable and predictable migraine triggers (median = 100, IQR = 10) or time-limited periods when headache avoidance is important (median = 100, IQR = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Using the modified Delphi method, a panel of migraine experts identified the importance of customizing treatment for people with migraine and the utility of "situational prevention," given the ability of new treatment options to meet this need and the potential to clinically identify patients and time periods when this approach would add value.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Migrañosos , Humanos , Consenso , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Técnica Delphi , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , CefaleaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of genome sequencing (GS) for diagnosing critically ill infants and noncritically ill pediatric patients (children) with suspected rare genetic diseases from a United States health sector perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate the diagnostic trajectory of patients. Parameter estimates were derived from a targeted literature review and meta-analysis. The model simulated clinical and economic outcomes associated with 3 diagnostic pathways: (1) standard diagnostic care, (2) GS, and (3) standard diagnostic care followed by GS. RESULTS: For children, costs of GS ($7284) were similar to that of standard care ($7355) and lower than that of standard care followed by GS pathways ($12,030). In critically ill infants, when cost estimates were based on the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, the lowest cost pathway was GS ($209,472). When only diagnostic test costs were included, the cost per diagnosis was $17,940 for standard, $17,019 for GS, and $20,255 for standard care followed by GS. CONCLUSION: The results of this economic model suggest that GS may be cost neutral or possibly cost saving as a first line diagnostic tool for children and critically ill infants.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Raras , Enfermedades no Diagnosticadas , Niño , Mapeo Cromosómico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Modelos Económicos , Enfermedades Raras/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Raras/genéticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Insomnia disorder is a prevalent, often unrecognized condition that affects millions. This clinical disorder is characterized by difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep over a sustained period. In fact, insomnia disorder affects much more than sleep; it increases the risk of developing serious medical and psychiatric comorbidities and can exacerbate existing conditions. The association between insomnia disorder and serious medical and psychiatric comorbidities are complex and directionality is not yet fully understood. There remain gaps in the treatment landscape for insomnia disorder. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the published literature to identify challenges, unmet needs, and burden associated with insomnia disorder. RESULTS: In this article, we describe the substantial burden that insomnia disorder poses on patients, the healthcare system, and society in the US. This article explores the factors attributable to this burden including limited provider knowledge, inadequate treatment options, and unknown long-term impacts of off-label treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Several recommendations are proposed to address these challenges and improve patient outcomes through efforts to: (1) establish the societal value of treatment; (2) improve the clinical understanding of insomnia disorder; and (3) prioritize development of and access to effective treatments that do not pose addiction potential or tolerability issues.
Asunto(s)
Costo de Enfermedad , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño , Humanos , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño/complicaciones , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño/epidemiología , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With some Medicaid state programs still restricting patient access to hepatitis C (HCV) treatment, it is important to demonstrate how states could expand treatment access to a broader Medicaid population and balance short-term budget concerns. METHODS: We used the HCV Transmission and Progression (TaP) Markov model to quantify the impact of removing restrictions to HCV treatment access on the infected populations, expenditures, and net social value for the North Carolina (NC), Oregon (OR), and Wisconsin (WI) Medicaid programs. Four HCV treatment access scenarios were modeled: 1) Baseline: Patients were treated according to Medicaid disease severity and sobriety requirements in 2015; 2) Remove Sobriety Restrictions: Disease severity restrictions were maintained, but people who inject drugs (PWID) were given access to treatment; 3) Treat Early: All patients, except for PWIDs, regardless of disease severity, were eligible for treatment and the diagnosis rate increased from 50 to 66%; and 4) Remove Access Restrictions: all patients, regardless of disease severity and sobriety, were eligible for treatment. Our key model outputs were: number of infected Medicaid beneficiaries, HCV-related medical and treatment expenditures, total social value, and state Medicaid spending over 10 years. RESULTS: Across all three states, removing access restrictions resulted in the greatest benefits over 10 years (net social value relative to baseline = $408 M in NC; $408 M in OR; $271 M in WI) and the smallest infected population (5200 in NC; 2000 in OR; 614 in WI). Reduced disease transmission resulted in lower health care expenditures (-$66 M in NC; -$50 M in OR; -$54 M in WI). All of the expanded treatment access policies achieved break-even costs-where total treatment and health care expenditures fell below those of Baseline-in 4 to 8 years. Removing access restrictions yielded the greatest improvement in social value (net of medical expenditures and treatment costs, QALYs valued at $150 K per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: While increasing treatment access in Medicaid will raise short-term costs, it will also provide clear benefits relatively quickly by saving money and improving health within a 10-year window. Patients and taxpayers would benefit by considering these gains and taking a more expansive and long-term view of HCV treatment policies.
Asunto(s)
Presupuestos , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Hepatitis C/tratamiento farmacológico , Medicaid , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Cadenas de Markov , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the comprehensive value of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) compared with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin (PEG/riba) employing a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA). STUDY DESIGN: To assess the societal-level cost-effectiveness of DAA treatment for HCV, we extended a previously published discrete-time Markov simulation model of HCV transmission and progression to include market dynamics and broader elements of value. METHODS: We followed a stepwise process to add novel value elements to a traditional CEA model for HCV treatments. For each additional element of value, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of DAAs compared with PEG/riba. RESULTS: The health technology assessment (HTA)-style model yielded an ICER value of $64,512 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Adding transmission dynamics resulted in an ICER value of $52,971 per QALY, whereas accounting for transmission dynamics and dynamic price and efficacy further decreased ICER values by 90% to $6406 per QALY. Incorporating genericization, productivity loss, caregiver spillover, and differential valuations of LYs vs quality of life, disease severity, and insurance value further decreased the ICER value to $4487 per QALY, a 93% reduction from the baseline HTA-style CEA to the fully realized GCEA. CONCLUSIONS: Our GCEA study results confirm that DAAs are a cost-effective treatment for HCV compared with PEG/riba even when using conventional cost-effectiveness approaches. Incorporating broader elements of value resulted in more than a 10-fold improvement in cost-effectiveness, emphasizing the substantive impact of a generalized approach and the importance of incorporating GCEAs into decision-making.
Asunto(s)
Hepatitis C Crónica , Hepatitis C , Humanos , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Hepacivirus , Análisis de Costo-Efectividad , Calidad de Vida , Hepatitis C Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Ribavirina/uso terapéutico , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Hepatitis C/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Atrial fibrillation (AF) practice guidelines recommend a rhythm-control strategy to improve symptoms and quality of life, noting the side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation. Emerging evidence indicates that comprehensive early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes versus the usual care. Using an online modified Delphi survey approach, perspectives and expert consensus among electrophysiologists were examined through a series of ranking and likelihood questions around treatment decision-making on (1) the use of comprehensive early rhythm-control strategies in patients with AF based on guidelines and emerging research and (2) treatment selection factors. A panel of 17 electrophysiologists reached a consensus on using early rhythm control (median 90, interquartile range 14) based on the view that early intervention improved cardiovascular outcomes (mean rank 1.6 of 3, 82% within 1 SD) and symptoms (1.8 of 3, 41%). AF-related symptoms were identified as the most important in making a treatment initiation decision (1.1 of 7, 88%), followed by AF type (2.5 of 7, 82%). Participants were most likely to initiate treatment at AF symptom onset (median 80; interquartile range 6). In making treatment selection decisions, participants ranked short-term/long-term safety (1.9 of 7, 88%) and efficacy (1.8 of 7, 53%) as the top 2 considerations. In conclusion, experts were in favor of early rhythm control; however, additional research is needed to address the role that early rhythm-control strategies play in current AF treatment management algorithms.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Ablación por Catéter , Humanos , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Antiarrítmicos/uso terapéutico , Consenso , Calidad de Vida , Riesgo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
AIMS: This study quantifies the value of survival gains attributable to novel treatments approved since 2003 for United States (US) patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: We estimated the increase in survival attributable to lenalidomide and bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the 1983-2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry. To estimate the survival benefit of treatments approved since 2015 (carfilzomib, elotuzomab, daratumumab, used in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone) we used clinical trial data to calibrate survival estimated using the SEER data. We then conducted an economic valuation of the estimated shift in survival curves for all therapies. Finally, we estimated the share of the value accruing to patients and manufacturers using treatment costs estimated from MarketScan data. RESULTS: The introduction of bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone (Vd) and lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone (Rd) resulted in substantial survival gains and societal value for multiple myeloma patients, generating 1.7 additional life-years per RRMM patient. More recently, approved novel treatments have improved survival over effective treatments (i.e. Rd/Vd) by an additional 2.5 life-years - the monetary value of this incremental survival benefit far exceeds the incremental cost of treatment. At the patient level, the incremental benefit of Rd/Vd is $335,500 and with novel treatments is $565,000. Applying this benefit to all future cohorts of US RRMM patients translates into a value of at least $75 billion and $130 billion with Rd/Vd and the novel treatments, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SEER registry data were only available through 2013. Therefore, survival gains for recently approved treatments were estimated based on clinical trials, rather than observed survival. Our valuation analysis does not capture sources of value aside from survival gains, for example, better quality of life, increased productivity, or the value of surviving until subsequent novel therapies become available. Substantial extensions in life expectancy in RRMM since 2003 translate into real economic value gained by society.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite therapeutic advances for patients with schizophrenia, improving patient outcomes and reducing the cost of care continue to challenge formulary decision makers. OBJECTIVES: To (1) understand the perspectives of formulary decision makers on challenges to optimal schizophrenia population management and (2) identify best practices and recommendations for mitigating these challenges. METHODS: This mixed-methods study, conducted in a double-blind manner, comprised in-depth telephone interviews with formulary decision makers from February through May 2020, and a web-based follow-on survey that was sent to all participants in October 2020. US-based formulary decision makers were recruited if they were directly involved in schizophrenia drug formulary or coverage decision making for national or regional payers, health systems, or behavioral health centers. Formulary decision makers' perceptions of challenges, policies, and programs related to schizophrenia population health management were assessed generally and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 19 formulary decision makers participated in the interviews and 18 (95%) completed the survey. Participants reported a spectrum of patient- and payer-driven challenges in schizophrenia population health management, including medication nonadherence, high pharmacy and medical costs, and frequent hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Participants noted that COVID-19 had worsened all identified challenges, although patient unemployment (mean score of 2.00 on a scale of 1 [made much worse] to 5 [made much better]) and reduced access to psychiatric care (mean score, 2.12) were most negatively affected. The most common strategies implemented in order to improve schizophrenia population health management included case management (89%), telemedicine (83%), care coordination programs (72%), strategies to mitigate barriers to accessing medication (61%), and providing nonmedical services to address social determinants of health (56%). Participants noted that, ideally, all treatments for schizophrenia would be available on their formularies without utilization management policies in place in order to increase accessibility to medication, but cost to the health plans made that difficult. Whereas 61% of respondents believed that long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) were currently underused in their organizations, only 28% represented organizations with open access policies for LAIs. Participants believed that among patients with schizophrenia, LAIs were most beneficial for those with a history of poor or uncertain adherence to oral medications (mean score of 4.50 on a scale of 1 [not at all beneficial] to 5 [extremely beneficial]) and those with recurring emergency department visits and inpatient stays (mean score, 3.94). Study participants reported slightly increased use of LAIs (mean score of 3.17 on a scale of 1 [negatively impacted] to 5 [positively impacted]) among their patients with schizophrenia in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; 29% of participants reported easing access restrictions for LAIs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants described persisting challenges and various approaches intended to improve schizophrenia population health management. They also recommended strategies to optimize future health management for this population, including expanding programs to address social determinants of health and mitigating barriers to accessing treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Roach, Graf, Pednekar, and Chou are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received financial support from Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, to conduct this study. Chou owns equity in Precision Medicine Group, the parent company of PRECISIONheor. Lin and Benson are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Doshi has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or both, for Acadia, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Sage Therapeutics and has received research funding from AbbVie, Biogen, Humana, Janssen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, PhRMA, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas/métodos , Personal de Salud , Gestión de la Salud Poblacional , Salud Poblacional , Esquizofrenia/terapia , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto/métodos , Masculino , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Esquizofrenia/diagnóstico , Esquizofrenia/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
The radioisotope cobalt-60 (Co-60) is important for commercial, medical, and agricultural applications. Its widespread use has meant that Co-60 can be found in less secured facilities, leading to the fear that unauthorized persons could obtain and use it to produce a "dirty bomb". This potential security concern has led to government calls for phasing-out Co-60 and other radiation sources, despite ongoing safety and security regulations for handling, transport and use of radioactive sealed sources. This paper explores potential implications of phasing out radioisotopic technologies, including unintended safety and cost consequences for healthcare and food in the US and globally. The use of Co-60 for healthcare and agricultural applications is well-documented. Co-60 is used to sterilize single-use medical devices, tissue allografts, and a range of consumer products. Co-60 is used in Gamma Knife treatment of brain tumors in over 70,000 patients annually. Co-60 is also used to preserve food and kill insects and pathogens that cause food-borne illness. Co-60 is effective, reliable, and predictable. Limitations of alternative sterilization technologies include complex equipment, toxicities, incompatibilities with plastic, and physical hazards. Alternative ionizing radiation sources for wide-reaching applications, including e-beam and x-ray radiation, have advantages and drawbacks related to commercial scale capacity, penetrability, complexity and reliability. Identifying acceptable alternatives would require time, costs and lengthy regulatory review. FDA testing requirements and other hurdles would delay replacement of existing technologies and slow medical innovation, even delaying access to life-saving therapies. A phase-out would raise manufacturing costs, and reduce supply-chain efficiencies, potentially increasing consumer prices, and reducing supply. These consequences are poorly understood and merit additional research. Given Co-60's importance across medical and non-medical fields, restrictions on Co-60 warrant careful consideration and evaluation before adoption.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To provide recommendations that will improve approaches to measuring the value of new medical technologies to patients. STUDY DESIGN: Informed discussion by experts after literature review. METHODS: A working group was formed, and participants discussed how value frameworks should incorporate key features important to patients in evaluating new medical technologies, particularly for chronic diseases. RESULTS: The working group suggests that new value frameworks should integrate real-world evidence to complement randomized controlled trials, incorporate the ways in which real-world behavior mediates outcomes, and explicitly discuss how therapies affect real-world equity and disparities in care. CONCLUSIONS: Collective stakeholders that include key decision makers within our healthcare system need to recognize the importance of implementing real-world evidence and devote resources to further research into the chronic disease areas in which the impact of human behavior is amplified by the duration of disease and treatment.
Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud/organización & administración , Proyectos de Investigación , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Atención a la Salud/economía , Atención a la Salud/normas , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/normas , Humanos , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Approval of new drugs is increasingly reliant on "surrogate endpoints," which correlate with but imperfectly predict clinical benefits. Proponents argue surrogate endpoints allow for faster approval, but critics charge they provide inadequate evidence. We develop an economic framework that addresses the value of improvement in the predictive power, or "quality," of surrogate endpoints, and clarifies how quality can influence decisions by regulators, payers, and manufacturers. For example, the framework shows how lower-quality surrogates lead to greater misalignment of incentives between payers and regulators, resulting in more drugs that are approved for use but not covered by payers. Efficient price-negotiation in the marketplace can help align payer incentives for granting access based on surrogates. Higher-quality surrogates increase manufacturer profits and social surplus from early access to new drugs. Since the return on better quality is shared between manufacturers and payers, private incentives to invest in higher-quality surrogates are inefficiently low.
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores , Aprobación de Drogas/métodos , Cobertura del Seguro , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Aprobación de Drogas/economía , Costos de los Medicamentos , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Humanos , Cobertura del Seguro/economía , Cobertura del Seguro/normas , Modelos Econométricos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine how observed medication nonadherence to 2 second-line, oral anticancer medications (axitinib and everolimus) affects progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We used an adherence-exposure-outcome model to simulate the impact of adherence on PFS. Using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) population model, we simulated drug exposure measured by area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and minimum blood or trough concentration (Cmin) under 2 scenarios: 1) optimal adherence and 2) real-world adherence. Real-world adherence was measured using the medication possession ratios as calculated from health insurance claims data. A population PK/PD model was simulated on individuals drawn from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a large survey broadly representative of the US population. Finally, we used previously published PK/PD models to estimate the effect of drug exposure (i.e., Cmin and AUC) on PFS outcomes under optimal and real-world adherence scenarios. RESULTS: Average adherence measured using medication possession ratios was 76%. After applying our simulation model to 2164 individuals in MEPS, drug exposure was significantly higher among adherent patients compared with nonadherent patients for axitinib (AUC: 249.5 vs. 159.8 ng×h/mL, P<0.001) and everolimus (AUC: 185.4 vs. 118.0 µg×h/L, P<0.001). Patient nonadherence in the real world decreased the expected PFS from an optimally adherent population by 29% for axitinib (8.4 months with optimal adherence vs. 6.0 months using real-world adherence, P<0.001) and by 5% (5.5 vs. 5.2 months, P<0.001) for everolimus. CONCLUSION: Nonadherence by renal cell carcinoma patients to second-line oral therapies significantly decreased the expected PFS.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed hospital readmission rates of patients with schizophrenia who were treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) or with oral antipsychotics after being discharged from a hospitalization. METHODS: Medical claims of patients with schizophrenia who were ages 18-64 and had a first hospitalization for a serious mental illness (index hospitalization, October 2007 through September 2012) and at least one prescription for a first- or second-generation antipsychotic were analyzed from the Truven Health MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Database. Analyses were conducted for patients with a sole diagnosis of schizophrenia (N=1,450) and for all patients with schizophrenia (N=15,556), which added patients with a codiagnosis of bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder. Probability of rehospitalization for any cause at 30 and 60 days after the initial hospitalization was assessed with multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) methods. The PSM model matched age, preindex use of LAIs or short-acting injectables, and select comorbidities between the LAI and the oral antipsychotics groups. RESULTS: LAIs were associated with significantly lower probability of rehospitalization compared with oral antipsychotics at 60 days for schizophrenia-only patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.41-.90) and for all patients (AOR=.70, CI=.52-.95). The absolute difference in probability of rehospitalization for all patients was significantly lower by 5.0% at 60 days in the LAI group compared with the oral antipsychotics group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with use of oral antipsychotics, use of LAIs was associated with fewer readmissions of Medicaid patients with schizophrenia within 60 days after an index hospitalization.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/administración & dosificación , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Medicaid/estadística & datos numéricos , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Esquizofrenia/terapia , Administración Oral , Adolescente , Adulto , Preparaciones de Acción Retardada , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Esquizofrenia/tratamiento farmacológico , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is suboptimally used in patients with hyperlipidemia in the 2 highest statin benefit groups (SBGs), as categorized by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. This study estimated the social value of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels by 50% for patients in SBGs 1 and 2 who have been treated with standard LLT but have not reached LDL-C goal, as well as the potential value of PCSK9 inhibitors for patients in these groups. STUDY DESIGN: Simulation model. METHODS: We used National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and US Census data to project the population of SBGs 1 and 2 in the time period 2015 to 2035. We used insurance claims data to estimate incidence rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and NHANES with National Vital Statistics data to estimate cardiovascular disease mortality rates. Using established associations between LDL-C and MACE risk, we estimated the value of reducing LDL-C levels by 50%. We incorporated results from a meta-analysis to estimate the value of PSCK9 inhibitors. RESULTS: Among those treated with LLT with LDL-C > 70 mg/dL in SBGs 1 and 2, the cumulative value of reducing LDL-C levels by 50% would be $2.9 trillion from 2015 to 2035, resulting primarily from 1.6 million deaths averted. The cumulative value of PCSK9 inhibitors would range from $3.4 trillion to $5.1 trillion (1.9-2.8 million deaths averted), or $12,000 to $17,000 per patient-year of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Lowering LDL-C in high-risk patients with hyperlipidemia has enormous potential social value. For patients in these high-risk groups, PCSK9 inhibitors may have considerable net value depending on the final prices payers ultimately select.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , LDL-Colesterol/efectos de los fármacos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/uso terapéutico , Hiperlipidemias/tratamiento farmacológico , Calidad de Vida , Distribución por Edad , Anciano , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , LDL-Colesterol/sangre , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Hiperlipidemias/prevención & control , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Encuestas Nutricionales , Pronóstico , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Medición de Riesgo , Distribución por Sexo , Análisis de Supervivencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have experienced tremendous economic and health gains in recent decades. Two of the major health challenges faced by the BRICS and other low and middle income countries are decreasing inequity in health outcomes and increasing affordability of health insurance. One fiscally sustainable option for the BRICS governments is a public subsidy system for private health insurance plans. This essay lays out the potential applicability and impacts of public subsidies for private health insurance plans, as well as opportunities and challenges for implementation, in the BRICS countries. Overall, providing public subsidies rather than health insurance would enable the BRICS governments to avoid the open-ended financial liabilities that have plagued advanced economies, while still expanding access to health insurance and encouraging the develoment of a robust private health insurance market. We conclude by suggesting an array of pilot programs that could serve as the seeds for publicly subsidized health insurance schemes within the BRICS markets.
RESUMEN
Treatment of hepatitis C virus, the most common chronic viral infection in the United States, has historically suffered from challenges including serious side effects, low efficacy, and ongoing transmission and reinfection. Recent innovations have produced breakthrough therapies that are effective in more than 90 percent of patients. These treatments could dramatically reduce the virus's prevalence but are costly. To quantify the benefit of these treatments to society, including the value of reduced transmission, we estimated the effects of several hepatitis C treatment strategies on cost and population health. Treating patients at all disease stages could generate $610-$1,221 billion in additional quality-adjusted life-years, plus an additional $139 billion in saved medical expenditures over fifty years, and minimize the disease burden, but up-front treatment costs would exceed $150 billion. An intermediate scenario--treating 5 percent of the infected population annually, regardless of patients' disease stages--would also return substantial benefits and would be much more affordable under current financing schemes.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Hepatitis C/economía , Hepatitis C/tratamiento farmacológico , Hepatitis C/epidemiología , Humanos , Modelos Estadísticos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
IMPORTANCE: Surrogate end points may be used as proxy for more robust clinical end points. One prominent example is the use of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in trials for oncologic treatments. Decisions based on surrogate end points may expedite regulatory approval but may not accurately reflect drug efficacy. Payers and clinicians must balance the potential benefits of earlier treatment access based on surrogate end points against the risks of clinical uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To present a framework for evaluating the expected net benefit or cost of providing early access to new treatments on the basis of evidence of PFS benefits before OS results are available, using non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as an example. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A probabilistic decision model was used to estimate expected incremental social value of the decision to grant access to a new treatment on the basis of PFS evidence. The model analyzed a hypothetical population of patients with NSCLC who could be treated during the period between PFS and OS evidence publication. Estimates for delay in publication of OS evidence following publication of PFS evidence, expected OS benefit given PFS benefit, incremental cost of new treatment, and other parameters were drawn from the literature on treatment of NSCLC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental social value of early access for each additional patient per month (in 2014 US dollars). RESULTS: For "medium-value" model parameters, early reimbursement of drugs with any PFS benefit yields an incremental social cost of more than $170,000 per newly treated patient per month. In contrast, granting early access on the basis of PFS benefit between 1 and 3.5 months produces more than $73,000 in incremental social value. Across the full range of model parameter values, granting access for drugs with PFS benefit between 3 and 3.5 months is robustly beneficial, generating incremental social value ranging from $38,000 to more than $1 million per newly treated patient per month, whereas access for all drugs with any PFS benefit is usually not beneficial. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The value of providing access to new treatments on the basis of surrogate end points, and PFS in particular, likely varies considerably. Payers and clinicians should carefully consider how to use PFS data in balancing potential benefits against costs in each particular disease.