Prediction of Suicide Attempts Using Clinician Assessment, Patient Self-report, and Electronic Health Records.

Importance: Half of the people who die by suicide make a health care visit within 1 month of their death. However, clinicians lack the tools to identify these patients. Objective: To predict suicide attempts within 1 and 6 months of presentation at an emergency department (ED) for psychiatric problems. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study assessed the 1-month and 6-month risk of suicide attempts among 1818 patients presenting to an ED between February 4, 2015, and March 13, 2017, with psychiatric problems. Data analysis was performed from May 1, 2020, to November 19, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Suicide attempts 1 and 6 months after presentation to the ED were defined by combining data from electronic health records (EHRs) with patient 1-month (n = 1102) and 6-month (n = 1220) follow-up surveys. Ensemble machine learning was used to develop predictive models and a risk score for suicide. Results: A total of 1818 patients participated in this study (1016 men [55.9%]; median age, 33 years [IQR, 24-46 years]; 266 Hispanic patients [14.6%]; 1221 non-Hispanic White patients [67.2%], 142 non-Hispanic Black patients [7.8%], 64 non-Hispanic Asian patients [3.5%], and 125 non-Hispanic patients of other race and ethnicity [6.9%]). A total of 137 of 1102 patients (12.9%; weighted prevalence) attempted suicide within 1 month, and a total of 268 of 1220 patients (22.0%; weighted prevalence) attempted suicide within 6 months. Clinicians' assessment alone was little better than chance at predicting suicide attempts, with externally validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.67 for the 1-month model and 0.60 for the 6-month model. Prediction accuracy was slightly higher for models based on EHR data (1-month model: AUC, 0.71; 6 month model: AUC, 0.65) and was best using patient self-reports (1-month model: AUC, 0.76; 6-month model: AUC, 0.77), especially when patient self-reports were combined with EHR and/or clinician data (1-month model: AUC, 0.77; and 6 month model: AUC, 0.79). A model that used only 20 patient self-report questions and an EHR-based risk score performed similarly well (1-month model: AUC, 0.77; 6 month model: AUC, 0.78). In the best 1-month model, 30.7% (positive predicted value) of the patients classified as having highest risk (top 25% of the sample) made a suicide attempt within 1 month of their ED visit, accounting for 64.8% (sensitivity) of all 1-month attempts. In the best 6-month model, 46.0% (positive predicted value) of the patients classified at highest risk made a suicide attempt within 6 months of their ED visit, accounting for 50.2% (sensitivity) of all 6-month attempts. Conclusions and Relevance: This prognostic study suggests that the ability to identify patients at high risk of suicide attempt after an ED visit for psychiatric problems improved using a combination of patient self-reports and EHR data.

Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment: Analysis From the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medicines have revolutionized diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. A recent randomized clinical trial comparing anti-VEGF agents for patients with decreased vision from DME found that at 1 year aflibercept (2.0 mg) achieved better visual outcomes than repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg); the worse the starting vision, the greater the treatment benefit with aflibercept. However, aflibercept and ranibizumab, respectively, are approximately 31 and 20 times more expensive than bevacizumab. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of DME. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc analysis of efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data at 1-year follow-up from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Patients were enrolled from August 22, 2012, through August 28, 2013, and analysis was performed from August 21, 2014, through November 7, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The ICERs for all trial participants and subgroups with baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/32 to 20/40 (better vision) and baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/50 or worse (worse vision). One-year trial data were used to calculate cost-effectiveness for 1 year for the 3 anti-VEGF agents; mathematical modeling was then used to project 10-year cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: The study included 624 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [10.5] years; 45.7% female; 65.5% white), 209 in the aflibercept group, 207 in the bevacizumab group, and 208 in the ranibizumab group. For all participants, during 1 year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1 110 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $1 730 000 per QALY, respectively. During 10 years, they were $349 000 per QALY and $603 000 per QALY, respectively. Compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept's ICER was $648 000 per QALY at 1 year and $203 000 per QALY at 10 years. For the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287 000 per QALY and $817 000 per QALY, respectively. In eyes with decreased vision from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, to reach a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY compared with bevacizumab during a 10-year horizon; for the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the costs would need to decrease by 62% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Aflibercept (2.0 mg) and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) are not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab for treatment of DME unless their prices decrease substantially. These results highlight the challenges that physicians, patients, and policymakers face when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results.

Implementation and Operational Research: A Cost-Effective, Clinically Actionable Strategy for Targeting HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis to High-Risk Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BACKGROUND: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective at preventing HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM), but there is uncertainty about how to identify high-risk MSM who should receive PrEP. METHODS: We used a mathematical model to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM (HIRI-MSM) questionnaire to target PrEP to high-risk MSM. We simulated strategies of no PrEP, PrEP available to all MSM, and eligibility thresholds set to HIRI-MSM scores between 5 and 45, in increments of 5 (where a higher score predicts greater HIV risk). Based on the iPrEx, IPERGAY, and PROUD trials, we evaluated PrEP efficacies from 44% to 86% and annual costs from $5900 to 8700. We designate strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ≤$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as "cost-effective." RESULTS: Over 20 years, making PrEP available to all MSM is projected to prevent 33.5% of new HIV infections, with an ICER of $1,474,000/QALY. Increasing the HIRI-MSM score threshold reduces the prevented infections, but improves cost-effectiveness. A threshold score of 25 is projected to be optimal (most QALYs gained while still being cost-effective) over a wide range of realistic PrEP efficacies and costs. At low cost and high efficacy (IPERGAY), thresholds of 15 or 20 are optimal across a range of other input assumptions; at high cost and low efficacy (iPrEx), 25 or 30 are generally optimal. CONCLUSIONS: The HIRI-MSM provides a clinically actionable means of guiding PrEP use. Using a score of 25 to determine PrEP eligibility could facilitate cost-effective use of PrEP among high-risk MSM who will benefit from it most.

Routine HIV screening in Portugal: clinical impact and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in Portugal to the current practice of targeted and on-demand screening. DESIGN: We used Portuguese national clinical and economic data to conduct a model-based assessment. METHODS: We compared current HIV detection practices to strategies of increasingly frequent routine HIV screening in Portuguese adults aged 18-69. We considered several subpopulations and geographic regions with varying levels of undetected HIV prevalence and incidence. Baseline inputs for the national case included undiagnosed HIV prevalence 0.16%, annual incidence 0.03%, mean population age 43 years, mean CD4 count at care initiation 292 cells/µL, 63% HIV test acceptance, 78% linkage to care, and HIV rapid test cost €6 under the proposed routine screening program. Outcomes included quality-adjusted survival, secondary HIV transmission, cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: One-time national HIV screening increased HIV-infected survival from 164.09 quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) to 166.83 QALMs compared to current practice and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €28,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Screening more frequently in higher-risk groups was cost-effective: for example screening annually in men who have sex with men or screening every three years in regions with higher incidence and prevalence produced ICERs of €21,000/QALY and €34,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: One-time HIV screening in the Portuguese national population will increase survival and is cost-effective by international standards. More frequent screening in higher-risk regions and subpopulations is also justified. Given Portugal's challenging economic priorities, we recommend prioritizing screening in higher-risk populations and geographic settings.