The Cost-effectiveness of Transplanting Hearts From Hepatitis C-infected Donors Into Uninfected Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The DONATE HCV trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of transplanting hearts from hepatitis C viremic (HCV+) donors. In this report, we examine the cost-effectiveness and impact of universal HCV+ heart donor eligibility in the United States on transplant waitlist time and life expectancy. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare 2 waitlist strategies for heart transplant candidates in 2018: (1) status quo (SQ) and (2) SQ plus HCV+ donors (SQ + HCV). From the DONATE HCV trial and published national datasets, we modeled mean age (53 years), male sex (75%), probabilities of waitlist mortality (0.01-0.10/month) and transplant (0.03-0.21/month) stratified by medical urgency, and posttransplant mortality (0.003-0.052/month). We assumed a 23% increase in transplant volume with SQ + HCV compared with SQ. Costs (2018 United States dollar) included waitlist care ($2200-190 000/month), transplant ($213 400), 4-wk HCV treatment ($26 000), and posttransplant care ($2500-11 300/month). We projected waitlist time, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs [$/QALY, discounted 3%/year]; threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). RESULTS: Compared with SQ, SQ + HCV decreased waitlist time from 8.7 to 6.7 months, increased undiscounted life expectancy from 8.9 to 9.2 QALYs, and increased discounted lifetime costs from $671 400/person to $690 000/person. Four-week HCV treatment comprised 0.5% of lifetime costs. The ICER of SQ + HCV compared with SQ was $74 100/QALY and remained ≤$100 000/QALY with up to 30% increases in transplant and posttransplant costs. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting hearts from HCV-infected donors could decrease waitlist times, increase life expectancy, and be cost-effective. These findings were robust within the context of current high HCV treatment costs.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Rheumatic Disease in Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Version 3.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by email and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: Draft guidance statements approved by the task force have been combined to form final guidance. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.