Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. STUDY SELECTION: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. CONCLUSION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).

Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing certainty of evidence is a key element of any systematic review. The aim of this meta-epidemiology study was to understand the frequency and ways with which certainty of evidence is assessed in contemporary systematic reviews published in high-impact sports science journals. METHODS: We searched PubMed and relevant journal web sites from 1 August 2016 to 11 October 2022 for systematic reviews published in the top-ten highest-impact journals within the 2020 Journal Citation Report for the Sports Sciences category. Pairs of independent reviewers screened items using a priori established criteria. RESULTS: Of 1250 eligible documents, 258 (20.6%) assessed the certainty of evidence, defined as using two or more distinct domains to provide an overall rating of the trustworthiness of findings across studies. Nine methods were cited for assessing certainty, with the most common being the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (61.6%). The proportion of systematic reviews assessing certainty of evidence appeared to increase over the 6-year timeframe analyzed. Across all reviews analyzed, a large majority addressed the domains of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency of the results. Other certainty domains including indirectness/applicability were less commonly assessed. DISCUSSION: Only one in five recent contemporary systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports science assessed certainty of evidence. Organizational and institutional education on methods for assessing evidence may help further increase uptake of these methods and improve both the quality and clinical impact of systematic reviews in the field.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations.

BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.

Guideline developers in the United States were inconsistent in applying criteria for appropriate Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation use.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether guidelines published by organizations based in the United States comply with published criteria for the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a cross-sectional study of all clinical practice guidelines that indicated the use of the GRADE approach, were published between 2011 and 2018, and listed in the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. RESULTS: We included 67 guideline documents from 44 of 135 (32.6%) US-based organizations that indicated the use of the GRADE approach. The majority (60/67, 89.6%) of guidelines defined the certainty of evidence consistent with GRADE, but only approximately 1 in 10 (7/67, 10.4%) explicitly reported consideration of all eight criteria to assess the certainty in the evidence for rating down and up. A majority of guidelines (36/67, 53.7%) provided a summary of the evidence, described explicit consideration of all four central domains (36/67, 53.7%), and rated the strength of recommendation consistent with GRADE (36/67, 53.7%). CONCLUSION: Approximately one in three US-based organizations developing evidence-based guidelines report the use of GRADE, but adherence to published criteria is inconsistent. As uptake of the GRADE approach increases in the United States, continued efforts to train guideline methodologists and panel members are important.

The Clinical and Economic Effects of Targeted Bowel Preparation: Results of a Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy bowel preparation failure is common, costly, and clinically harmful. Prediction models can identify patients at high risk for preparation failure, but they are rarely used. GOALS: To investigate the clinical and economic effects of using a more intensive preparation upfront (a "targeted" strategy) for patients identified as high risk for preparation failure. STUDY: We developed a Markov decision analytic model to compare usual care with a targeted strategy. Usual care consisted of a 4 L preparation, followed by a 2-day preparation in the event of preparation failure. The targeted strategy consisted of a 4 L preparation for low-risk patients, and upfront 2 days preparation for high-risk patients. Base-case values were gathered from literature review. Under each strategy, we calculated days spent preparing for, or undergoing, colonoscopy (patient burden), and cost per patient (payer perspective). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case, the targeted strategy resulted in a similar patient burden compared with usual care (2.56 vs. 2.51 d, respectively). However, it substantially reduced cost per patient ($1254 vs. $1343) by reducing the number of colonoscopies. In sensitivity analyses, the targeted strategy reduced cost across the entire plausible range of risk of preparation failure and prediction model sensitivity and specificity. The targeted strategy resulted in less patient burden than usual care when (1) preparation failure risk exceeded 20%; (2) prediction sensitivity exceeded 73%; or (3) prediction specificity exceeded 76%. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted bowel preparation is likely to reduce costs associated with repeat colonoscopy with minimal effect on patient burden.

Stakeholders apply the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to facilitate coverage decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Coverage decisions are complex and require the consideration of many factors. A well-defined, transparent process could improve decision-making and facilitate decision-maker accountability. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We surveyed key US-based stakeholders regarding their current approaches for coverage decisions. Then, we held a workshop to test an evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework for coverage based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 42 individuals (including 19 US stakeholders as well as international health policymakers and GRADE working group members) attended the workshop. Of the 19 stakeholders, 14 (74%) completed the survey before the workshop. Almost all of their organizations (13 of 14; 93%) used systematic reviews for coverage decision-making; few (2 of 14; 14%) developed their own evidence synthesis; a majority (9 of 14; 64%) rated the certainty of evidence (using various systems); almost all (13 of 14; 93%) denied formal consideration of resource use; and half (7 of 14; 50%) reported explicit criteria for decision-making. At the workshop, stakeholders successfully applied the EtD framework to four case studies and provided narrative feedback, which centered on contextual factors affecting coverage decisions in the United States, the need for reliable data on subgroups of patients, and the challenge of decision-making without formal consideration of resource use. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders successfully applied the EtD framework to four case studies and highlighted contextual factors affecting coverage decisions and affirmed its value. Their input informed the further development of a revised EtD framework, now publicly available (http://gradepro.org/).

Pathways to colonoscopy in the South: seeds of health disparities.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to highlight sociodemographic differences in how patients access colonoscopy. METHODS: We invited all eligible patients (n = 2500) from 2 academy-affiliated colonoscopy centers in Alachua County, Florida (1 free standing, 1 hospital based), to participate in a precolonoscopy survey (September 2011-October 2013); patients agreeing to participate (n = 1841, response rate = 73.6%) received a $5.00 gift card. RESULTS: We found sociodemographic differences in referral pathway, costs, and reasons associated with obtaining the procedure. Patients with the ideal pathway (referred by their regular doctor for age-appropriate screening) were more likely to be Black (compared with other minorities), male, high income, employed, and older. Having the colonoscopy because of symptoms was associated with being female, younger, and having lower income. We found significant differences for 1 previously underestimated barrier, having a spouse to accompany the patient to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy differed by sociodemographics in our study, which implies that interventions based on a single facilitator will not be effective for all subgroups of a population.

Levels of evidence ratings in the urological literature: an assessment of interobserver agreement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent urologists with no specific training agree upon level of evidence (LoE) ratings of studies published in the urological literature, as LoE are commonly referenced as a measure of evidence quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 86 clinical research studies published in four major urology journals were reviewed. Each article was independently reviewed by eight reviewers using a standardized data abstraction form. Articles were assessed for type of study (therapy, prognosis, diagnosis or economic) and LoE (I, II, III or IV). Reviewers received only written instructions and no formal training in the application of this classification system. RESULTS: Of the 86 articles, 69% related to therapy, 16% to prognosis, and 15% to diagnosis. Eight studies (9%) provided Level I evidence, 18 studies (21%) Level II, 14 studies (16%) Level III and 46 studies (54%) Level IV evidence. The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) based on all reviewers (eight reviewers) was 0.67 (0.59-0.74; P= 0.001) for the type of study and 0.55 (0.48-0.64; P= 0.001) for the LoE. In an analysis limited to a subset of studies in which all reviewers agreed upon the type of study question (n= 40) the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.79 (0.70-0.86; P= 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the present study there was a low interobserver agreement for LoE ratings by urologists with no specific training. These findings suggest caution in the interpretation of LoE ratings and emphasize the importance of specific training for individuals that are charged with quality of evidence determinations.

Direct-to-consumer advertising for urological pharmaceuticals: a cross-sectional analysis of print media.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs that are relevant to urological conditions. Evidence suggests that DTCA of prescription drugs increase pharmaceutical sales. Concern about such advertising methods has recently increased owing to the market withdrawal of heavily marketed drugs that were found to have serious health risks. METHODS: Three consecutive issues of 26 popular magazines during a 3-month period were screened for urology-related DTCA. Advertisements were abstracted using a standardized evaluation form that was pilot-tested in a separate sample of nonurological advertisements. Variables analyzed included the type of advertisement, claims of effectiveness, references of research studies, inducements, and use of tables, figures, and pictures. RESULTS: We identified 8 unique DTCA in 4 different magazines (Ladies Home Journal, Golf Digest, Sports Illustrated, and Good Housekeeping). All advertisements were disease-specific and targeted patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia-related symptoms (n = 3), incontinence (n = 3), or erectile dysfunction (n = 2). The median number of claims made per DTCA was 3 (range, 2-6). None of the claims made were supported by research data, as presented in tables or figures, or referenced peer-reviewed publications. The most common types of appeals addressed symptom control (8/8), lifestyle improvement (7/8), effectiveness (4/8), and dependability (3/8), while none addressed drug safety. CONCLUSIONS: DTCA of prescription drugs for urological conditions are found in select journals and focus on few highly prevalent conditions. None of the advertisement claims identified in this study were supported by research data. There seems to be significant room for improvement in the quality of information provided by urological advertisements.

Do patient preferences influence decisions on treatment for patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis face a difficult treatment decision between colectomy and therapy with infliximab or cyclosporine. The aim of this study was to understand how individual patient preferences for the various treatment outcomes influence the optimal treatment decision for a given patient. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate treatment with total colectomy with an ileo pouch-anal anastomosis (TC/IPAA), cyclosporine (CSA), infliximab (INFLX), and infliximab followed by cyclosporine for treatment failures (INFLX-->CSA). Utility weights for treatment outcomes were elicited from 48 patients using both time trade-off and visual rating scale methods. Preference sets were applied to the model to identify the therapy that maximized quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each patient. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: Optimal treatment was highly variable among patients (INFLX-->CSA = 42%, 20/48; TC/IPAA = 37%, 18/48; CSA = 21%, 10/48; INFLX = 0%, 0/48). However, when average preference weights from our sample were applied to the model, medical treatments were superior to TC (CSA = .26 QALYs gained vs TC/IPAA; INFLX-->CSA = .25 QALYs gained vs TC/IPAA). CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences have a clear impact on the optimal treatment for steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Although averaged preferences support the use of medical interventions, a third of individual patients may benefit most from proceeding directly to colectomy. Failure to fully assess individual preferences may result in suboptimal treatment for these patients.

The perception of cancer risk in patients with prevalent Barrett's esophagus enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) have a risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma of approximately 0.5% per year. Patients may have difficulty understanding this risk. This study assessed the perceived risk of cancer in patients with BE, and correlated their risk estimates with their health care use behaviors. METHODS: We performed a survey of patients with BE participating in an endoscopic surveillance program at 2 sites: a university teaching hospital and a Veterans' Administration hospital. A questionnaire also elicited their demographics as well as their sources of health information. Health care behaviors, including physician visits and endoscopic surveillance behaviors, were assessed. Patients were classified as either overestimators or nonoverestimators of risk. Characteristics of overestimators, as well as health care use patterns, were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients met entry criteria, and 92 (78%) completed all the questionnaires. Sixty-eight percent of patients overestimated their 1-year risk of cancer, with a mean estimated 1-year cancer risk being 13.6%. The lifetime risk also was overestimated by 38% of patients. Patients who overestimated risk were more likely to be Veterans' Administration medical center patients, have more symptomatic reflux, and were more likely to use the Internet to get health care information. There was no significant difference in physician visits between overestimators and nonestimators (1.2 visits per year vs 1.0, P = .20), nor in endoscopy use (5.7 endoscopies per 5-year period vs 5.0, P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with prevalent BE participating in an endoscopic surveillance program overestimated their chances of developing adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Efforts to improve education of such patients with BE are warranted.