Does Real Option Value Influence Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations? A Survey of US Oncologists.

OBJECTIVES: Survival benefit from anticancer treatments, even if modest, improves a patient's chances of accessing future innovations, thereby creating real option value. There is no empirical evidence on the impact of potential future innovations on oncologists' treatment recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey of practicing medical and hematological oncologists. We presented a hypothetical metastatic cancer patient with median survival of 6 months under 4 decision-making scenarios with varying expected efficacy and time to arrival of future innovations. We assessed the likelihood of discussing future innovations with their patients and the likelihood that future innovations would influence their current treatment recommendation, as well as factors associated with these 2 outcomes using multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: A total of 201 oncologists completed the survey. When future innovations were expected to improve survival by 6 months and be available in 6 months, 76% of oncologists were likely or very likely to discuss the innovations with their patients, and 68% reported they would influence their current treatment recommendations. A 1-month increase in the expected survival improvement of future innovation was associated with a 1.17 greater odds (95% CI 1.1-1.25) of reporting likely or very likely to discuss future innovations with their patients, whereas a 1-month increase in the expected time to arrival was associated with a 0.91 lower odds (95% CI 0.88-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Given that potential future innovations seem to influence oncologists' treatments recommendations, evidence to inform clinical guidelines and value assessments should consider data on real option value impacts to support informed treatment decision making.

The value of the accelerated approval pathway: real-world outcomes associated with reducing the time between innovations.

Aim: We investigated the effect of shortening time between innovations with the accelerated approval (AA) pathway on patient outcomes for three solid tumors. Methods: This real-world analysis evaluated patients receiving sequential AA pathway-approved innovations after initial treatment with existing therapies in three solid tumor case studies. Outcomes attributable to AA were estimated and assumed approval occurred at the time of conversion to approval and extrapolated to the US population. Results: Survival gains from accessing innovative therapies were 2.3-3.8-times higher when using the AA pathway. At the US population level, AA was associated with ∼8000 life-years gained across all three tumor case studies. Conclusion: In areas of rapid clinical development, the value of existing therapies can be enhanced by earlier access to AA pathway innovations and should be considered when evaluating the AA program.

What is this study about? The US Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval pathway provides patients with access to innovative drugs sooner than standard regulatory pathways. Using three case studies in solid tumors, this study measured how many patients on current cancer drugs received future cancer drugs because of the accelerated approval pathway and asked whether quicker access to new drugs resulted in them living longer.What were the results? In three cancer case studies, the accelerated approval pathway led to more patients receiving future cancer drugs. Patients who received future drugs through the AA pathway lived longer than patients who did not have access to them.What do the results of the study mean? The accelerated approval pathway is important because it can improve outcomes of current cancer drugs by giving patients additional treatments to choose from in the future and therefore a chance to live longer. Policymakers should consider this when thinking about making changes to the accelerated approval pathway.

The Impact of Funding Inpatient Treatments for COVID-19 on Health Equity in the United States: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) to evaluate how Medicare funding of inpatient COVID-19 treatments affected health equity in the United States. METHODS: A DCEA, based on an existing cost-effectiveness analysis model, was conducted from the perspective of a single US payer, Medicare. The US population was divided based on race and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white) and county-level social vulnerability index (5 quintile groups) into 15 equity-relevant subgroups. The baseline distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated across the equity subgroups. Opportunity costs were estimated by converting total spend on COVID-19 inpatient treatments into health losses, expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using base-case assumptions of an opportunity cost threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained and an equal distribution of opportunity costs across equity-relevant subgroups. RESULTS: More socially vulnerable populations received larger per capita health benefits due to higher COVID-19 incidence and baseline in-hospital mortality. The total direct medical cost of inpatient COVID-19 interventions in the United States in 2020 was estimated at $25.83 billion with an estimated net benefit of 735 569 QALYs after adjusting for opportunity costs. Funding inpatient COVID-19 treatment reduced the population-level burden of health inequality by 0.234%. Conclusions remained robust across scenario and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first DCEA to quantify the equity implications of funding COVID-19 treatments in the United States. Medicare funding of COVID-19 treatments in the United States could improve overall health while reducing existing health inequalities.

Estimating the US Baseline Distribution of Health Inequalities Across Race, Ethnicity, and Geography for Equity-Informative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Information on how life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy varies across equity-relevant subgroups is required to conduct distributional cost-effectiveness analysis. These summary measures are not comprehensively available in the United States, given limitations in nationally representative data across racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: Through linkage of US national survey data sets and use of Bayesian models to address missing and suppressed mortality data, we estimate health outcomes across 5 racial and ethnic subgroups (non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic). Mortality, disability, and social determinant of health data were combined to estimate sex- and age-based outcomes for equity-relevant subgroups based on race and ethnicity, as well as county-level social vulnerability. RESULTS: Life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy at birth declined from 79.5, 69.4, and 64.3 years, respectively, among the 20% least socially vulnerable (best-off) counties to 76.8, 63.6, and 61.1 years, respectively, among the 20% most socially vulnerable (worst-off) counties. Considering differences across racial and ethnic subgroups, as well as geography, gaps between the best-off (Asian and Pacific Islander; 20% least socially vulnerable counties) and worst-off (American Indian/Alaska Native; 20% most socially vulnerable counties) subgroups were large (17.6 life-years, 20.9 disability-free life-years, and 18.0 quality-adjusted life-years) and increased with age. CONCLUSIONS: Existing disparities in health across geographies and racial and ethnic subgroups may lead to distributional differences in the impact of health interventions. Data from this study support routine estimation of equity effects in healthcare decision making, including distributional cost-effectiveness analysis.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Technologies: Data Requirements and Challenges.

Governments and health technology assessment agencies are putting greater focus on and efforts in understanding and addressing health inequities. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to evaluate the costs and health gains of different interventions to inform the decision-making process on funding of new treatments. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is an extension of cost-effectiveness analysis that quantifies the equity impact of funding new treatments. Key challenges for the routine and consistent implementation of DCEA are the lack of clearly defined equity concerns from decision makers and endorsed measures to define equity subgroups and the availability of evidence that allows analysis of differences in data inputs associated with the equity characteristics of interest. In this article, we detail the data gaps and challenges to build robust DCEA analysis routinely in health technology assessment and suggest actions to overcome these hurdles.

Assessing the impact of grief on quality of life, work productivity, and health outcomes for parents bereaved from SMA: A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: U.S. cost-effectiveness recommendations suggest that analyses should include all costs and effects relevant to the decision problem [1]. However, in many diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), few studies have evaluated bereaved family outcomes after a child has died, neglecting potential impacts on their health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity, and mental health. Additionally, grief-related outcomes are rarely included in economic evaluations. This manuscript outlines the protocol of a study that will estimate the HRQoL, work functioning, and mental health of bereaved parents of children with SMA type 1 to determine how outcomes vary based on parent's sex and the time since a child's death. METHODS: This study will involve two phases. In Phase 1, we will conduct a literature review to identify prior research that has measured how parental grief impacts HRQoL, work productivity, and mental health. We will also interview four bereaved parents of children with SMA type 1, stratified by parent sex and time since their child's death, and analyze findings using a thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we will develop a survey draft based on Phase 1 findings. Parents bereaved from SMA type 1 will review our survey draft and we will revise the survey based on their feedback. We will send a cross-sectional survey to approximately 880 parents bereaved from SMA type 1. We will analyze findings from the survey to investigate whether the severity of grief symptoms is correlated with HRQoL, productivity, depression and anxiety symptom severity. We will also evaluate whether the mean scores of grief and each of the outcomes vary significantly when stratified by parent sex and the time since the child's death. DISCUSSION: Our results will provide preliminary information on how parental grief can impact HRQoL, productivity, and mental health outcomes over time. Increasing the availability of family outcomes data will potentially assist organizations performing health economic evaluations, such as the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the U.S. This research will also help to inform the development of future economic guidelines on this topic.

A Pragmatic Guide to Assessing Real Option Value for Medical Technologies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide recommendations for identifying and implementing real option value (ROV) calculations in value assessment. METHODS: We identified the primary mechanisms through which ROV can be created based on a theoretical framework for ROV, assessed approaches for predicting future innovations and improvements in health, and described the steps for estimating ROV in a cost-effectiveness analysis framework. RESULTS: The 3 primary mechanisms by which ROV can be created are when a current treatment (1) prolongs survival to increase the proportion of patients who can receive future innovations, (2) slows disease progression to increase patients' eligibility for future innovations, and (3) directly affects the efficacy of future innovations. We provide 5 recommendations for implementing ROV in value assessment. First, the decision to quantify ROV should be based on a qualitative evaluation of whether the treatment can enable greater benefits from future innovations. Second, ROV should be quantified in the same value assessment framework (eg, cost-effectiveness analysis using quality-adjusted life-year) as the conventional value. Third, method for quantifying ROV should consider data availability, rate of innovation, and sources of future health improvements. Fourth, ROV estimate should be presented alongside the conventional value as a separate element due to its inherently large uncertainty. Finally, generalizability of ROV estimate should be evaluated, and local data should be used when available. CONCLUSIONS: ROV can arise from a variety of mechanisms that should be considered before investing in an ROV analysis. Calculating ROV includes exploring different approaches for forecasting future innovations and future improvements in health.

Cost-effectiveness of intensification with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin and sitagliptin vs direct intensification with insulin in the United Kingdom.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intensification strategy with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (pathway 1) compared with NPH insulin (pathway 2) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the United Kingdom who were not at goal on metformin and sitagliptin. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the well-established, validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model from the payer perspective over a patient's lifetime. Randomized clinical trials informed treatment effect measures, while public or published sources informed economic inputs. Scenario analyses of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycaemia rate, body mass index effects, SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular protective effects, and population characteristics were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Pathway 1 increased life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with pathway 2 (13.49 vs. 13.37, and 9.40 vs. 9.22, respectively). Additional drug costs in pathway 1 were offset by diabetes-related complication decreases, leading to slightly lower direct medical costs for pathway 1 (£25747 vs £26095). Pathway 1 was therefore cost-neutral (no interpretable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), while improving clinical outcomes. Scenario analyses consistently showed cost-neutrality or cost-effectiveness of pathway 1. The highest result remained less than £3000/QALY, reflecting older patients (≥65 years) with lower baseline HbA1c (7%). CONCLUSIONS: For UK patients with T2D not at goal on metformin and sitagliptin therapy, treatment intensification with SGLT2 inhibitors prior to NPH insulin is cost-neutral or cost-effective compared with immediate NPH insulin intensification.

Living with and Caring for People with Multiple Food Allergies: A Qualitative Study.

Purpose: The quality of life (QoL) impact of food allergies extends beyond severe allergic reactions, as food avoidance can permeate the daily lives of individuals with food allergies and their caregivers. People with multiple food allergies may experience a greater impact on QoL than people with a single food allergy, but there is limited evidence available. The aim of the study was to provide insight into the lived experiences of adults, teenagers, children, and caregivers of children with multiple food allergies. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted of people with multiple food allergies and their caregivers (n = 20) in the United States, including 10 adults, 5 teenagers, and 5 caregivers of children. Patterns in responses were explored using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were developed by the researchers to convey the experiences of people with food allergies and QoL impact: preparedness and allergen avoidance results in a loss of spontaneity; emotional impact varies by person and for each person; participating in society involves speaking up and trusting others; and food is more than nutrition. In addition, 3 themes were identified that convey the experiences of caregivers: looking out for your child's safety is an emotional balancing act; limitations on what you can do on your own and as a family; and creating a safe and fulfilling environment can be time-consuming and costly. Conclusion: These findings highlight that people with multiple food allergies experience social limitations, stress about food safety and allergen avoidance, and restrictions on freedom. Caregiver QoL is impacted by the need to navigate social, emotional, and practical implications of caring for a child with multiple food allergies.

People with food allergies must constantly make an effort to avoid the foods they are allergic to. Having an allergy to more than 1 type of food (for example, peanuts, eggs, or milk) can be even more difficult. In this study, we interviewed adults and teenagers with food allergies, as well as parents of children with food allergies, about how having an allergy to more than 1 type of food affects their daily lives. We found that people with more than 1 food allergy often had stress and anxiety. They also had to change the way they traveled or socialized. Parents caring for a child with food allergies were also impacted. Parents had to look out for their child's safety and made changes to family plans and activities. The lives of people with food allergies and their families may be improved by treatments or interventions that can lower the risk of allergic reactions.

Are Drug Novelty Characteristics Associated With Greater Health Benefits?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the association between characteristics of novel drugs and incremental health gains relative to standard of care, in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: This study's unit of analysis is the drug-indication pair. For pairs approved by the US FDA from 1999 to 2018, we quantified incremental health gains using QALYs from the published literature and characterized each pair's novelty in terms of a series of six binary (yes/no) characteristics of novel drugs given special consideration by Health Technology Assessment agencies: Novel mechanism of action, Indicated for a rare disease, Indicated for a pediatric population, Treats a serious condition, Offers meaningful improvement over available therapies, and Potential to address unmet clinical needs. We analyzed measures of bivariate association (Mann-Whitney U and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests) and multivariable regression, accounting for the influence of multiple novelty characteristics simultaneously. RESULTS: Our sample of 146 drugs represents 21% of drugs approved the FDA in the time period (1999-2018). Median and mean QALY gains for 'novel' drug-indication pairs exceeded corresponding QALY gains for non-novel drug-indication pairs. For most comparisons, the bivariate relationships between QALY gains and novelty characteristics were significant at p < 0.05 except for novel mechanism of action (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and pediatric indication (both bivariate tests). Multivariable models revealed an independent association between novelty characteristics and QALY gain except for unmet clinical need and indicated for a rare disease. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs with novelty characteristics conferred larger health gains than drugs without these characteristics in bivariate analysis, multivariable models, or both. Future research should examine other aspects of drug novelty, such as patient and health system costs and equitable access.

Development of stakeholder-informed recommendations for inclusion of family spillover effects in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: The impacts of disease and treatment on a patient's family members and informal caregivers are known as "family spillover effects." Although many formal value frameworks call for the consideration of these effects, they are often not included in health technology assessments (HTAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). A formal evaluation of stakeholder perspectives may help address the disconnect for inclusion of family spillover effects observed in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop stakeholder-driven recommendations for the measurement and use of family spillover effects in the United States and to identify research opportunities. METHODS: We first conducted a targeted literature review of US-based CEAs and HTA reports from the past 10 years to assess the current use of family spillover effects. We then used a purposeful sampling technique to conduct 25 qualitative interviews with outcomes researchers, patient advocates, health economists, and health policy and payer experts to gather perspectives on when and how family spillover effects should be considered in HTA processes. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes and develop preliminary recommendations. Finally, we conducted an online workshop with 8 stakeholders to discuss, rate, and refine preliminary recommendations to develop final recommendations. RESULTS: A key theme identified in the stakeholder interviews was the role that data availability, analyst preferences, and prior precedence play in limiting the inclusion of spillover effects in HTAs. Additional themes included support for the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative spillover effects and the need to capture broad and diverse impacts across populations. We developed 15 recommendations from the consensus building workshop addressing measurement, CEA modeling, and HTA processes. Key recommendations included (1) a transparent process for deciding when family spillover effects should be included, (2) measurement of direct and indirect costs with priority based on the magnitude of impact, (3) the use of validated measures, (4) the use of proxy information and expert elicitation when quality data are unavailable, and (5) the use of a modified impact inventory table for transparency of included effects. Research opportunities included patient involvement in family spillover effect research and HTAs, mapping algorithms and non-preference-based caregiver measures to generate utilities, and consensus best practices for modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistent inclusion of family spillover effects in HTAs and CEAs remains a persistent challenge. The stakeholder-driven recommendations and research opportunities identified in this study may help improve the transparency, measurement, and use of family spillover effects in assessing the clinical and economic value of novel medical technologies.

The current and projected economic burden of Parkinson's disease in the United States.

Parkinson's disease (PD), following Alzheimer's disease, is the second-most common neurodegenerative disorder in the United States. A lack of treatment options for changing the trajectory of disease progression, in combination with an increasing elderly population, portends a rising economic burden on patients and payers. This study combined information from nationally representative surveys to create a burden of PD model. The model estimates disease prevalence, excess healthcare use and medical costs, and nonmedical costs for each demographic group defined by age and sex. Estimated prevalence rates and costs were applied to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 to 2050 population data to estimate current and projected burden based on changing demographics. We estimate that approximately 630,000 people in the United States had diagnosed PD in 2010, with diagnosed prevalence likely to double by 2040. The national economic burden of PD exceeds $14.4 billion in 2010 (approximately $22,800 per patient). The population with PD incurred medical expenses of approximately $14 billion in 2010, $8.1 billion higher ($12,800 per capita) than expected for a similar population without PD. Indirect costs (e.g., reduced employment) are conservatively estimated at $6.3 billion (or close to $10,000 per person with PD). The burden of chronic conditions such as PD is projected to grow substantially over the next few decades as the size of the elderly population grows. Such projections give impetus to the need for innovative new treatments to prevent, delay onset, or alleviate symptoms of PD and other similar diseases.

The Value of New: Consideration of Product Novelty in Health Technology Assessments of Pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to understand how treatments affect patients and society have broadened the criteria that health technology assessment (HTA) organizations apply to value assessments. We examined whether HTA agencies in eight countries consider treatment novelty in methods and deliberations. METHODS: We defined a novel pharmaceutical product to be one that offers a new approach to treatment (e.g., new mechanism of action), addresses an unmet need (e.g., targets a rare condition without effective treatments), or has a broader impact beyond what is typically measured in an HTA. We reviewed peer-reviewed publications and technical guidance materials from HTA organizations in Australia, Canada, England, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States (US). In addition, we explored how HTA organizations integrated novelty considerations into deliberations and recommendations related to two newer therapies-voretigene neparvovec for an inherited retinal disorder and ocrelizumab for multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: None of the HTA organizations acknowledge treatment novelty as an explicit value criterion in their assessments of pharmaceutical products. However, drugs that have novel characteristics are given special consideration, particularly when they address an unmet need. Several organizations document a willingness to expend more resources and accept greater evidence uncertainty for such treatments. Qualitative deliberations about the additional unquantified potential benefits of treatment may also influence HTA recommendations. CONCLUSION: Major HTA organizations do not recognize novelty as an explicit value criterion, although drugs with novel characteristics may receive special consideration. There is an opportunity for organizations to codify their approach to evaluating novelty in value assessment.

Modeling the Ex Ante Clinical Real Option Value in an Innovative Therapeutic Area: ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A drug that improves survival and/or disease progression can create real option value (ROV)-the additional health gain from future innovations enabled by a longer survival. ROV can be a relevant consideration for both clinical and payer decision-makers. We aimed to estimate the ex ante ROV for first-line (1L) alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with 1L alectinib versus 1L crizotinib due to potential future second-line (2L) drugs. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase 3 trial of 1L alectinib and phase 2 trial of 2L brigatinib. We identified drugs being studied in phase 2 and 3 trials in ALK-positive NSCLC at the time of alectinib's 1L approval and projected the likelihood and timing of their arrival and their potential efficacy based on publicly available data. RESULTS: The discounted incremental LYs and QALYs for alectinib increased by 12.9% (95% CR - 2.96%, 34.82%; 1.25 vs. 1.11) and 11.2% (95% CR - 2.14%, 29.29%; 1.03 vs. 0.92), respectively, after accounting for ROV. The incremental ROV of alectinib was sensitive to the projected efficacy of future drugs, uptake level, and the hazard ratio of progression-free survival of alectinib (vs. crizotinib). CONCLUSIONS: Ex ante ROV can be a significant value consideration in therapeutic areas with high levels of expected innovation. The potential efficacy of future drugs and incremental survival with alectinib at the projected time of arrival are important considerations in assessing ROV.

When are breakthrough therapies cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of novel drug approvals use accelerated pathways, with notable growth in the US Food and Drug Administration-designated breakthrough pathway in recent years. Breakthrough therapy (BT) designation suggests that these therapies offer substantial potential to improve health outcomes but their value for money is not fully understood, as BTs typically cost more than non-BTs (NBTs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic value of BTs and factors associated with their reported value. METHODS: Using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness (CE) Analysis Registry, we (1) summarized the CE of BTs, as measured by cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY); (2) compared the CE of BTs and NBTs in the United States; and (3) identified factors associated with BT CE using general estimating equation models across US willingness-to-pay (WTP) benchmarks ($50K-$150K/QALY). RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 279 drugs, designating 83 (32%) as BTs. Incremental costs and health gains (QALYs) were higher for BTs relative to NBTs ($29,000 vs $20,000 and 0.7 vs 0.2 QALYs, respectively), and BTs had more favorable CE ratios compared with NBTs (median values $38,000/QALY vs $50,000/QALY, respectively). For BTs, hepatitis C treatments had the most favorable CE ratios, which may be driven by the curative nature of some hepatitis C therapies. Furthermore, BT CE ratios for new molecular entities (NMEs) were about 40% lower than ratios for non-NME BTs on average, which may signal more value for money when the BT has a new active molecule. Regression analysis to identify trends driving CE found that BT drugs compared with active comparators (instead of best supportive care) were less likely to be cost-effective at standard US WTP thresholds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.1-0.6) and that BTs in the neoplasm space also trended less likely to be cost-effective (OR = 0.12-0.43). CE ratios reported by studies with industry funding were also more likely to be cost-effective than ratios from studies with other funding sources (OR = 4.3-4.5), though this finding was not significant at WTP thresholds over $50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from published, peer-reviewed CE studies suggests that BTs may confer greater health benefits than NBTs in terms of overall QALYs. Our analysis supports that the US Food and Drug Administration BT designation may be associated with increased value for money for these BTs. However, factors such as the disease area, NME status, and comparator (active vs standard of care) will also influence whether these therapies are cost-effective. DISCLOSURES: Dr Cohen reports grants or contracts from PhRMA Foundation, National Pharmaceutical Council, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Vir Biotechnology, Moderna, Amgen, and Lundbeck; consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, IQVIA, Novartis, Partnership for Health Analytic Research, Pharmerit, Precision Health Economics, Sage, Sanofi, and Sarepta; and stock or stock options from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck. Ms Kowal is an employee and stockholder of Genentech, Inc. Dr Yeh is an employee and stockholder of Roche, Inc.

Evaluating Real-World National and Regional Trends in Definitive Closure in U.S. Burn Care: A Survey of U.S. Burn Centers.

To better understand trends in burn treatment patterns related to definitive closure, this study sought to benchmark real-world survey data with national data contained within the National Burn Repository version 8.0 (NBR v8.0) across key burn center practice patterns, resource utilization, and clinical outcomes. A survey, administered to a representative sample of U.S. burn surgeons, collected information across several domains: burn center characteristics, patient characteristics including number of patients and burn size and depth, aggregate number of procedures, resource use such as autograft procedure time and dressing changes, and costs. Survey findings were aggregated by key outcomes (number of procedures, costs) nationally and regionally. Aggregated burn center data were also compared to the NBR to identify trends relative to current treatment patterns. Benchmarking survey results against the NBR v8.0 demonstrated shifts in burn center patient mix, with more severe cases being seen in the inpatient setting and less severe burns moving to the outpatient setting. An overall reduction in the number of autograft procedures was observed compared to NBR v8.0, and time efficiencies improved as the intervention time per TBSA decreases as TBSA increases. Both nationally and regionally, an increase in costs was observed. The results suggest resource use estimates from NBR v8.0 may be higher than current practices, thus highlighting the importance of improved and timely NBR reporting and further research on burn center standard of care practices. This study demonstrates significant variations in burn center characteristics, practice patterns, and resource utilization, thus increasing our understanding of burn center operations and behavior.

Stakeholder point of view on prescription drug affordability - a systematic literature review and content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research were to: 1) understand perspectives on affordability of pharmaceutical drugs from the point of view of stakeholders as reported in published peer-reviewed journals and conferences; 2) evaluate if (and how) perspectives on affordability overlapped across stakeholders. METHODS: The systematic literature review followed Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Content analysis with iterative and systematic coding of text was conducted, to identify themes. RESULTS: A total of 7,372 unique citations were eligible, and 126 articles included for final synthesis. For patients, 6 core themes emerged: financial barriers, adherence, access, patient-provider communication, financial distress, and factors that impact affordability. For payers, 5 core themes: financing schemes, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, private vs. public preferences, and ethics. For providers, 3 themes: patient-provider communication, physician prescribing behavior, and finding alternatives to support patient access. For policymakers, 2 themes: measuring affordability and the role of government. Limited articles representing the manufacturer perspective were identified. Perspectives of decision makers (payers, policymakers) did not overlap with those affected by affordability (patients, providers). CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the multi-dimensionality of drug "affordability." Multiple factors beyond cost influence patient affordability implying interventions can help alleviate affordability issues for some patients. The lack of overlap highlights potential hazards that decisions related to out-of-pocket spending, insurance coverage, reimbursement, and rationing occur without explicitly considering patient and provider perspectives.

Cost-effectiveness of intensification with SGLT2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Using a US payer perspective, this study aimed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of adding sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs switching to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among patients with type 2 diabetes who were not at glycated hemoglobin A1c target after dual therapy with metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. STUDY DESIGN: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the validated IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from randomized clinical trials with economic data based on published literature. METHODS: Risk of treatment-emergent adverse events and complications were simulated using submodels informed by published risk equations adjusted for patient characteristics, physiological parameters, and history of complications. Outcomes included cumulative incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs. Scenario analyses were performed to assess robustness of results to variations in clinical and cost inputs and assumptions. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, adding an SGLT2 inhibitor dominated the strategy of switching to a GLP-1 RA, improving survival by 0.049 LYs and 0.026 QALYs, and was associated with cost savings of $9511. The majority of the scenario analyses confirmed dominance of the DPP-4 inhibitor + SGLT2 inhibitor pathway vs the GLP-1 RA pathway. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reinforced the base-case finding of cost savings while gaining QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with an SGLT2 inhibitor on top of a DPP-4 inhibitor demonstrated slightly better efficacy and cost savings compared with switching to a GLP-1 RA in patients not at glycemic goal with metformin and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for COVID-19 Treatments for Hospitalized Patients in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available. METHODS: A lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives. RESULTS: Viewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective. CONCLUSION: Effective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. METHODS: This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy of its class. This study estimated the cost for patients treated with sitagliptin 100 mg, a commonly used T2DM treatment, versus oral semaglutide 14 mg for patients whose disease is not well controlled with metformin. Costs and effects were estimated over 5 years for each treatment strategy using predictive model equations and clinical trial data for the two treatments. These costs were considered for both a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million lives and the full US population. A patient treated with oral semaglutide 14 mg would expect to see 70.7% higher costs than a patient treated with sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years. For every 10% of patients who would switch from sitagliptin 100 mg to oral semaglutide 14 mg, costs would increase by 7.1%. Changing the cost of oral semaglutide 14 mg had the greatest impact on model results. The findings from the analysis were consistent across a range of alternate model inputs. Oral semaglutide 14 mg is more costly than sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years.