Virtual versus usual in-office care for multiple sclerosis: The VIRTUAL-MS multi-site randomized clinical trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects nearly 1 million people and is estimated to cost $85.4 billion in the United States annually. People with MS have significant barriers to receiving care and telemedicine could substantially improve access to specialized, comprehensive care. In cross-sectional analyses, telemedicine has been shown to be feasible, have high patient and clinician satisfaction, reduce patient costs and burden, and enable a reasonable assessment of disability. However, no studies exist evaluating the longitudinal impact of telemedicine care for MS. Here we describe the study protocol for VIRtual versus UsuAL In-office care for Multiple Sclerosis (VIRTUAL-MS). The main objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of telemedicine for MS care on: patient clinical outcomes, economic costs, patient, and clinician experience. METHODS: This two-site randomized clinical trial will enroll 120 adults with a recent diagnosis of MS and randomize 1:1 to receive in-clinic vs. telemedicine care for 24 months. The primary outcome of the study is worsening in any one of the four Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite 4 (MSFC4) measures at 24 months. Other study outcomes include patient and clinician satisfaction, major healthcare costs, Expanded Disability Status Scale, treatment adherence, and digital outcomes. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will directly address the key gaps in knowledge about longitudinal telemedicine-enabled care in an MS population. It will inform clinical care implementation as well as design of trials in MS and other chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05660187.

Tackling Challenges in Assessing the Economic Value of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the value of tumor-agnostic drugs (TAD) is challenging given the potential variability in treatment effects, trials with small sample sizes, different standards of care (SoC), and lack of comparative data from single-arm basket trials. Our study developed and applied novel methods to assess the value of pembrolizumab compared with SoC to inform coverage decisions. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-utility of pembrolizumab for previously treated patients with 8 advanced or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient cancers from a US commercial payer perspective. Efficacy of pembrolizumab was based on data from trials directly or with adjustment using Bayesian hierarchical models. Eight chemotherapy-based external control arms were constructed from the TriNetX electronic health record databases. Tumor-specific health-state utility values were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: At a lifetime horizon, pembrolizumab was associated with increased effectiveness compared with chemotherapies in colorectal (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]: +0.64, life years [LYs]: +0.64), endometrial (QALYs: +3.79, LYs: +5.47), and small intestine cancers (QALYs: +1.73, LYs: +2.48), but not for patients with metastatic gastric, cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic, ovarian, and brain cancers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied substantially across tumor types. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in treating colorectal and endometrial cancers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: $121 967 and $139 257, respectively), and not cost-effective for other assessed cancers at a $150 000 willingness-to-pay/QALY threshold, compared with SoC chemotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of TADs can vary by cancers. Using analytic tools such as external controls and Bayesian hierarchical models can tackle several challenges in assessing the value of TADs and uncertainties from basket trials.

Evaluating Policies of Expanding Versus Restricting First-Line Treatment Choices: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare payers often implement coverage policies that restrict the utilization of costly new first-line treatments. Cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted to inform these decisions by comparing the new treatment with an existing one. However, this approach may overlook important factors such as treatment effect heterogeneity and endogenous treatment selection, policy implementation costs, and diverse patient preferences across multiple treatment options. We aimed to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis framework that considers these real-world factors, facilitating the evaluation of alternative policies related to expanding or restricting first-line treatment choices. METHODS: We introduced a metric of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compares an expanded choice set (CS) including the new first-line treatment with a restricted CS excluding the new treatment. ICER(CS) accounts for treatment selection influenced by heterogeneous treatment effects and policy implementation costs. We examined a basic scenario with 2 standard first-line treatment choices and a more realistic scenario involving diverse preferences toward multiple choices. To illustrate the framework, we conducted a retrospective evaluation of including versus excluding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] + AAP) as a first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. RESULTS: The traditional ICERs for ADT + AAP versus ADT alone and ADT+ docetaxel were $104 269 and $206 324/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. The ICER(CS) for comparing an expanded CS with ADT + AAP with a restricted CS without ADT + AAP was $123 179/quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework provides decision makers with policy-relevant tools, enabling them to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies of expanding versus restricting patients' and physicians' first-line treatment choices.

Real-world treatment patterns and economic burden of post-cataract macular edema.

BACKGROUND: Post-cataract macular edema (PCME) is a condition that can occur in patients following cataract surgery without risk factors and complications. Although 80% of patients experience spontaneous resolution after 3 to 12 months, in persistent cases, it can lead to permanent vision loss if left untreated. There are currently no standardized treatment guidelines for PCME, and there have been limited studies showing the impact of PCME on annual Medicare spending and ophthalmology-related outpatient visits per case compared to those without the complication. This study aims to evaluate real-world treatment patterns and the economic burden of patients with PCME. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis identified patients from the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Patients with (n = 2430) and without (n = 7290) PCME 1 year post cataract surgery were propensity score matched 1:3 based on age, geographic region, diabetes presence, cataract surgery type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Treatment pattern analysis for each PCME patient summarized the distribution of medications across lines of therapy. Economic burden analysis compared the mean number and costs of eye-related outpatient visits, optical coherence tomography imaging scans, and ophthalmic medications between the 2 groups using linear regression models. RESULTS: Treatment pattern analysis found 27 different treatment combinations across 6 treatment lines. The most common first-line treatments were topical steroid drops (372 [30%]), topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug drops (321 [27%]), and intraocular or periocular injectable steroids (189 [15%]). Compared to match controls, PCME patients averaged 6 additional eye-related outpatient office visits (95% CI: 5.7-6.2) resulting in an additional $3,897 (95% CI: $3,475 - $4,319) in total costs. Patients filled 3 more ophthalmology-related outpatient prescription medications (95% CI: 2.8-3.2), adding $371 in total cost (95% CI: $332 - $410). CONCLUSIONS: PCME treatment patterns showed wide clinical variability in treatments and time, specifically regarding injectable treatments and combination therapy. Additionally, significantly higher healthcare resource use and economic burden were found for both patients and payers when comparing PCME patients to non-PMCE controls. These results highlight the need for treatment standardization and demonstrate that interventions targeted at preventing PCME may be valuable.

Health care resource utilization and costs among patients with multiple myeloma with exposure to double-class or triple-class multiple myeloma treatments: A retrospective US claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advancements in the therapeutic landscape, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable. There are multiple treatment options available with a novel mechanism of action, but there is limited evidence describing the economic burden among patients with MM exposed to different drug classes and combinations and across different health care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe all-cause and MM-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients with MM exposed to different drug classes and combinations (ie, double-class and triple-class-exposed) and characterize the economic burden in different health care settings among these patients with MM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the IBM MarketScan databases. The study included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with MM between December 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. The study sample comprised double-class-exposed (DCE) and triple-class-exposed (TCE) cohorts, categorized based on their earliest exposure to different combinations of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, or targeted monoclonal antibody. Patients with at least 1 subsequent line of therapy following the categorization were included, and the start date of the first subsequent line of therapy was the index date. The primary outcomes were all-cause and MM-related HCRU and costs during the follow-up period. Costs were stratified across 8 care settings defined by place of service. The Kaplan-Meier sample average technique was used to estimate the cumulative mean outcomes, accounting for differential follow-up periods. The outcomes were reported as per patient per month (PPPM). 18 years) diagnosed with MM between December 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. The study sample comprised double-class-exposed (DCE) and triple-class-exposed (TCE) cohorts, categorized based on their earliest exposure to different combinations of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, or targeted monoclonal antibody. Patients with at least 1 subsequent line of therapy following the categorization were included, and the start date of the first subsequent line of therapy was the index date. The primary outcomes were all-cause and MM-related HCRU and costs during the follow-up period. Costs were stratified across 8 care settings defined by place of service. The Kaplan-Meier sample average technique was used to estimate the cumulative mean outcomes, accounting for differential follow-up periods. The outcomes were reported as per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: The study included 1,521 patients with MM, of whom 1,016 (66.8%) were DCE and 505 (33.2%) were TCE. The mean total all-cause health care costs were $20,338 PPPM, and approximately 85% of the total all-cause costs were MM-related. The mean all-cause and MM-related total costs were driven by overall drug costs primarily attributed to MM treatment and administration costs. The TCE cohort was associated with more HCRU and incurred higher costs than the DCE cohort across all categories. The hospital-based ambulatory setting had the highest all-cause and MM-related costs during the follow-up period: $7,302 (95% CI = $6,801-$7,784) PPPM and $6,695 (95% CI = $6,239-$7,136) PPPM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that the economic burden following exposure to multiple drug classes and combinations is substantial, especially among the TCE cohort and in the ambulatory setting. These findings highlight the need for more effective treatments that can mitigate the economic burden of patients with MM. Future research on the HCRU and costs related to recently approved MM treatments with novel mechanisms is warranted. DISCLOSURES: At the time of this study, Dr Yang was a postdoctoral fellow and the fellowship was supported by GSK. Dr Boytsov is a full-time employee of GSK. Dr Carlson discloses consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, and Genentech. Dr Barthold reports no disclosures.

Quantifying the value of older adult-specific clinical trials: Post-lumpectomy irradiation among older adults with early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Although there is increasing interest in conducting cancer clinical trials in older adults, the benefit of such trials is unclear. We aimed to quantify the real-world clinical and economic effects of two phase 3 trials (CALGB 9343 and PRIME II) which showed that post-lumpectomy radiation therapy (RT) improves loco-regional recurrence but makes no improvement in overall survival among older women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a health-transition model to quantify the incremental clinical and economic outcomes between scenarios with vs. without older adult-specific trial results from a societal perspective between 2004 and 2018. The transition probabilities in the model were mainly derived from the 10-year results of CALGB 9343. The total number of the affected patient population in the US and the change in the probability of omitting post-lumpectomy RT due to the CALGB 9343 and PRIME II results were derived from a retrospective analysis of the SEER registry data for patients with ESBC. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to calculate the 95% credible interval (CR) of the incremental clinical and economic outcomes between the two scenarios. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2018, 32,936 (95% CR: 31,512, 34,357) fewer patients received post-lumpectomy RT among those aged 70 years or older diagnosed with ESBC in the US and there was a decrease cost of $419 M USD (95% CR: -$238 M, -$689 M) in scenarios with vs. without older adult-specific trial results. The difference in projected life years (1083 years, 95% CI: -2542, 7985) and QALYs (866 years, 95% CI: -2561, 7780) were not significant. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 k/QALY, the probability of older adult-specific trial results generating a positive net monetary benefit was 98%. DISCUSSION: The CALGB 9343 and PRIME II trial results were associated with a substantial cost-saving in the US society. Our results suggest that older adult-specific clinical trials that demonstrate no survival benefit of an intervention in older adults could be correlated with a significant monetary benefit. Further case studies are needed for different types of older adult-specific trials to understand the value of older adult-specific trials comprehensively.

Incorporating Dynamic Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Are Known Unknowns Valuable?

BACKGROUND: Current practice in health technology assessment (HTA) of pharmaceuticals conducts cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) based on a static price or the estimated price at market launch. Recent publications suggest incorporating dynamic pricing. To test the feasibility and importance of including dynamic pricing, we compared the standard static approach to four dynamic scenarios by replicating US-based HTA evaluations with dynamic pricing inputs. METHODS: The four case examples included omalizumab (Xolair®) for the treatment of allergic asthma, elagolix (Orilissa®) for the treatment of endometriosis, ocrelizumab (Ocrevus®) for the treatment of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), and dupilumab (Dupixent®) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The primary outcome was the relative percentage change in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two dynamic pricing scenarios versus static pricing. Secondary outcomes included the absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case and an assessment of decision uncertainty. RESULTS: Base-case ICERs were $327,000, $102,000, $700,000, and $102,000 for allergic asthma, endometriosis, PPMS, and AD, respectively. Across scenarios and case examples, the range of ICERs versus base-case varied from decreases of 56% to increases of 232%. The absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case ranged from decreases of $120,000 to increases of $758,000. Conclusions on cost effectiveness were altered in 2/16 scenarios across the four case examples. CONCLUSIONS: Given the decision context that US payers face, with prices varying over time, findings suggest further research to reduce uncertainty around price trajectories, as well as conducting or updating multiple assessments over the lifecycle of pharmaceutical products.

The effectiveness and value of AMX0035 and oral edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, California Healthcare Foundation, The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, Arnold Ventures, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., 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, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, Express Scripts, Genentech/ Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health First, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer. Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Mr Nikitin, Ms McKenna, Ms Richardson, and Drs Rind and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Drs Makam, Carlson, and Suh received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

How Much Does the US Public Value Equity in Health? A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to summarize and qualitatively assess published evaluations on the US public's preferences for health equity and their willingness to trade-off efficiency for equity. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant peer-reviewed publications on this topic before February 2021. We included English-language articles that solicited US preferences regarding efficiency-equity trade-offs and prioritizing healthcare resources based on socioeconomic status, race, disability, or burden of disease. Quantitative and qualitative data captured were decided a priori and iteratively adapted as themes emerged. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were found over a 25-year span. Only 4 focused on resource allocation across social groups. Three distinct notions of fairness were studied: equal distribution of resources, priority to the worse-off, and equal health achieved. We found modest support for equal distribution of resources and willingness to sacrifice efficiency for equity in the United States. Prioritizing the underserved was relatively less studied and received less support and was more preferred when resources were scarce, when allocating resources between social groups, or when participants were informed about the fundamental origins of health inequities. Equal health was the least studied, but received nontrivial support. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature evaluating the US public's understanding and preferences toward equity was severely limited by the lack of rigorous quantitative studies and heterogeneous attribute selection and fairness definitions. High-quality studies that clearly define fairness, focus on social groups, and apply rigorous methods to quantify equity preferences are needed to integrate the public's value on equity into healthcare decisions.

The potential long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care for treatment of metastatic TRK fusion thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is approved for patients with metastatic TRK fusion cancers, including differentiated thyroid (DTC), colorectal cancer (CRC), and soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Given the basket clinical trial design of larotrectinib, direct comparisons against standard of care in each of the mentioned cancers have not been assessed. Also, owing to the limited duration of follow-up in clinical trials, long-term outcomes for treatments are generally not known or estimated. OBJECTIVE: To compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients with metastatic DTC, CRC, and STS who are eligible to receive larotrectinib against patients with unknown NTRK gene fusion status receiving standard-of-care therapy. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to estimate the long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and standard of care for 3 tumor types. Larotrectinib survival data, assessed by independent review committee, were derived from an updated July 2020 analysis of 19, 8, and 23 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with metastatic TRK fusion DTC, CRC, and STS, respectively. The DTC survival data also included 2 patients aged less than 18 years for a total of 21 patients. Survival estimates for standard of care were derived from published clinical trials. Progressionfree and overall survival for all treatments were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Lognormal) fit to the available data. The final exponential form was selected based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. QALYs were estimated by adjusting the time spent in the preprogression and postprogression health states by utility weights derived from publicly available literature. RESULTS: Patients receiving larotrectinib experienced more LYs and QALYs compared with those receiving standard-of-care treatments across all 3 assessed cancer types. In DTC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 7.15-8.26 additional LYs (5.87-6.12 QALYs); in CRC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 1.26-1.27 additional LYs (1.00 QALYs); and in STS, patients receiving larotrectinib had 5.56 additional LYs (1.99 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard of care in metastatic TRK wild-type cancers, larotrectinib is estimated to result in improved LY and QALY outcomes based on parametric extrapolations of intrial survival data. Because patient-level data were unavailable for adjusted analyses, a cross-trial comparison was performed. Given the limitations of this analytic approach and the small sample size for larotrectinib in trials, future studies should reassess the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care as treated patients accrue and long-term survival data mature. DISCLOSURES: K. Suh, J. Carlson, and S. Sullivan report consulting fees from Bayer US LLC. F. Xia and T. Williamson are employees of Bayer US LLC. This study was funded by Bayer US LLC. The sponsor had no role in the design of the study and did not have any role in the execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.

Key learnings from Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's real-world evidence reassessment pilot.

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are considering adopting a lifecycle approach to assessments to address uncertainties in the evidence base at launch and to revisit the clinical and economic value of therapies in a dynamic clinical landscape. For reassessments of therapies post launch, HTA agencies are looking to real-world evidence (RWE) to enhance the clinical and economic evidence base, though challenges and concerns in using RWE in decision-making exists. Stakeholders are embarking on demonstration projects to address the challenges and concerns and to further define when and how RWE can be used in HTA decision making. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review piloted a 24-month observational RWE reassessment. Key learnings from this pilot include identifying the benefits and challenges with using RWE in reassessments and considerations on prioritizing and selecting topics relevant for RWE updates.

Assessing Payers' Preferences for Real-World Evidence in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To rank the US payers' preferences for attributes of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in the context of chronic disease and to quantify trade-offs among them. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 180 employees from payer organizations were tasked to choose between 2 RWE studies assuming they were assessing evidence to inform formulary decisions for chronic disease treatment. Each RWE study was characterized by 7 attributes with 3 levels each: very informative, moderately informative, and not measured. We used a D-optimal main-effects design. Survey data were fitted to a conditional logit model to obtain a relative measure of the ranking of importance for each attribute. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were the most preferred attribute. It was 4.68 times as important as productivity outcomes-the least preferred attribute. It was followed by health-related quality of life (2.78), methodologic rigor (2.09), resource utilization (1.71), and external validity (1.56). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a quantification of the value payers place on key RWE attributes. Across attributes, payers have higher preferences for clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes than the other attributes. Between attributes' levels, payers prefer high levels of information in clinical outcomes and methodologic rigor but are indifferent in other attributes. Our results bridge the gap between the information that payers seek and the attributes that RWE studies prioritize and effectively guide future research design.

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.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and diagnostics in the United States: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Performance-based risksharing arrangements (PBRSAs) have continued to emerge and evolve over the last 2 decades. To date, most of the attention and available literature have focused on pharmaceuticals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current status and trends regarding the use of PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices using the University of Washington Performance Based Risk Sharing Database. We augmented the review using PubMed, Google, and payer and industry websites. Key words and phrases such as outcomes-based, value-based, coverage with evidence development, performance-based, and risk-sharing were used in combination with device or diagnostic. To characterize arrangements in terms of product and market attributes, we extracted data for each product, including arrangement descriptions, arrangement type, year, therapeutic area, product manufacturer, payer, and product type. Arrangements were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two arrangements were identified between the years 2001 and 2019, with 30 (57.7%) for devices and 22 (42.3%) for diagnostic tests. Among these, 23 (44.2%) were coverage with evidence development (CED), only in research; 17 (32.7%) were performance-linked reimbursement (PLR); and 12 (23.1%) were CED, only with research. The majority of arrangements for devices were developed in cardiology (12, 40%), endocrinology (4, 13.3%), and radiology (3, 10%). Most of arrangements for identified diagnostic tests were in oncology (17, 77.3%). Over time, there has been a trend towards increasing adoption of PLR and CED, only with research, especially since 2014. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to comprehensively review PBRSA arrangements for diagnostics and devices in the United States. Our findings demonstrated that there is substantial PBRSA activity for devices and diagnostics, and the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and variety. These arrangements have implications for managed care into the future as the health care system shifts towards value-based care and value-based pricing to contain cost for payers and ensure value in the patient populations. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Budget impact analysis of the DiviTum TKa assay in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: DiviTum TKa, a blood-based biomarker assay developed to monitor and predict treatment response in hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer (HR + mBC), may decrease traditional disease monitoring assessments and avoid prolongation of futile treatments. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic and treatment budget impact of the assay on a postmenopausal HR + HER2- mBC population in a one-million-member U.S. health plan. METHODS: We developed a budget impact model comparing inclusion and exclusion of DiviTum TKa to standard care under which DiviTum TKa (1) reduces the frequency of traditional mBC monitoring tools, and (2) predicts treatment futility in advance of radiological disease progression. Traditional disease monitoring assessment schedules were based on guidelines and expert opinions. DiviTum TKa's impact on therapy utilization was based on published literature and expert opinion. Modeled costs included DiviTum TKa, NCCN-recommended treatments, imaging, biomarker testing, and adverse events. We calculated total and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs with a 3-year time horizon. RESULTS: The inclusion of 416 DiviTum TKa assays ($166,400) was largely offset by 193 fewer CT scans, 88 fewer bone scans, and 55 fewer biomarker tests over 3 years, a savings of -$128,400, resulting in a PMPM of $0.001. In scenario analyses, adding DiviTum TKa resulted in additional treatment-related cost-savings (-$465,600), resulting in a PMPM cost-savings of -$0.013, or an average savings of -$7,400 per each patient initiating first-line cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus aromatase inhibitor therapy. Expected savings approached 3× the spend on the new test. Results were most sensitive to DiviTum TKa cost, population parameters, and treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical use of the DiviTum TKa assay is expected to decrease traditional imaging and monitoring and may reduce the overall cost of managing mBC if it leads to clinical decisions to avoid futile therapy. Post-coverage, real-world monitoring of palliative therapies among post-menopausal mBC populations is needed to better categorize cost savings over time.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat is already known about this subject Current monitoring of therapy for hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer involves a combination of tumor marker testing, imaging, and other tools. Monitoring is variable in practice, and therefore relatively insensitive to evidence of tumor progression.What this study adds DiviTum TKa is a novel biomarker that may offer a more convenient and sensitive alternative to traditional monitoring of metastatic breast cancer. Factoring in cost offsets due to reduced monitoring and earlier discontinuation of futile therapies may be cost-saving to health plans that cover this technology.

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.

Exploring Medication Adherence with P2Y12 Inhibitors Using Conditional and Unconditional Quantile Regression Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Previous research assessing medication adherence with P2Y12 inhibitors has shown good adherence rates, ranging from 78% to 92%. Studies that used administrative claims data defined adherence using an arbitrary cut point of ≥ 80% medication possession ratio (MPR) or proportion of days covered (PDC). While this method is used frequently, it does not allow the researcher to observe how each factor impacts adherence along the entire distribution. The objective of the study was to use conditional quantile regression (CQR) and unconditional quantile regression (UQR) to assess heterogenous effects of adherence to P2Y12 inhibitors and covariates of interest and compare these results to those from a traditional logistic regression framework. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study used the commercial claims and encounters databases from IBM® MarketScan® from 2010 to 2017. We included patients who had an incident percutaneous coronary intervention, used a drug-eluting stent, and filled an incident prescription for a P2Y12 inhibitor. Adherence was measured for 185 days using PDC. Adherence to branded clopidogrel, generic clopidogrel, branded prasugrel, and branded ticagrelor was assessed, along with factors that could impact adherence, using logistic regression, CQR, and UQR. We found that while adherence to the antiplatelets was generally high, prasugrel and ticagrelor had significantly lower PDC compared to branded clopidogrel, especially around the 30th percentile. Across all quantiles in both the CRQ and UQR frameworks, comorbidities such as diabetes and depression and living in the southern region had significant negative effects on adherence, although the relative impact differed across quantiles. CONCLUSIONS: Using CQR and UQR allowed for heterogenous assessment of covariates along the adherence distribution, which is not possible with the traditional logistic regression method. The UQR framework revealed patients who initiate prasugrel or ticagrelor generally have lower adherence compared to those treated with branded clopidogrel, especially around the 30th quantile. Using these methods in other types of data sets, such as electronic health records, could help strengthen our results to develop policies to improve antiplatelet adherence in a targeted population.

Use of real-world evidence in economic assessments of pharmaceuticals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing interest in expanding the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in economic assessments of pharmaceuticals, decision makers face uncertainty about how RWE should be used. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of RWE in economic assessments of drugs by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). METHODS: We reviewed cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses in final evidence reports of pharmaceuticals published by ICER. We calculated the total number of RWE uses and the proportion of model inputs informed by RWE per report. We classified model inputs into 15 categories based on their attributes and then examined what category each RWE informed to classify the reason for RWE use. Finally, we characterized RWE by study design, data source, and sponsor type. RESULTS: We identified 33 reports, all of which used RWE; the mean RWE use per report was 12 (range = 4-26). The average proportion of model inputs informed by RWE per report was 32.7%, but this proportion had a wide range (range = 4.1%-76.9%). RWE was most commonly used for disease progression inputs (28.7%) and health care resource utilization and costs (21.1%), but was rarely used for drug-specific clinical outcomes such as effectiveness (1.5%), adverse drug event rates (0.5%), and discontinuation rates (1.2%). The most frequently used study design was a retrospective cohort (56.6%), and the most frequently used data source was registry data (41.4%). About a third (30.2%) of RWE was industry-sponsored. CONCLUSIONS: RWE has been commonly used to inform pharmaceutical value assessments conducted by ICER. However, there has been relatively limited use of RWE to inform drug-specific effectiveness, despite calls for greater inclusion of RWE in value assessments for real-world drug effectiveness. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the University of Washington School of Pharmacy Corporate Advisory Board Health Tech Fund (HTF). The funder had no role in management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. All authors were employed by the CHOICE Institute, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, at the time of the study. Carlson reports grants from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Allergan, Galderma, and ViFor Pharma, unrelated to this study. Veenstra reports personal fees from several manufacturers unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.