Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Improves Outcomes in Patients With Intraventricular Conduction Delay But Not Right Bundle Branch Block: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) varies by QRS characteristics; individual randomized trials are underpowered to assess benefit for relatively small subgroups. METHODS: The authors analyzed patient-level data from pivotal CRT trials (MIRACLE [Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation], MIRACLE-ICD [Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation], MIRACLE-ICD II [Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation II], REVERSE [Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction], RAFT [Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure], BLOCK-HF [Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block], COMPANION [Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure], and MADIT-CRT [Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial - Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]) using Bayesian Hierarchical Weibull survival regression models to assess CRT benefit by QRS morphology (left bundle branch block [LBBB], n=4549; right bundle branch block [RBBB], n=691; and intraventricular conduction delay [IVCD], n=1024) and duration (with 150-ms partition). The continuous relationship between QRS duration and CRT benefit was also examined within subgroups defined by QRS morphology. The primary end point was time to heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or death; a secondary end point was time to all-cause death. RESULTS: Of 6264 patients included, 25% were women, the median age was 66 [interquartile range, 58 to 73] years, and 61% received CRT (with or without an implantable cardioverter defibrillator). CRT was associated with an overall lower risk of HFH or death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [credible interval (CrI), 0.65 to 0.84]), and in subgroups of patients with QRS ≥150 ms and either LBBB (HR, 0.56 [CrI, 0.48 to 0.66]) or IVCD (HR, 0.59 [CrI, 0.39 to 0.89]), but not RBBB (HR 0.97 [CrI, 0.68 to 1.34]; Pinteraction <0.001). No significant association for CRT with HFH or death was observed when QRS was <150 ms (regardless of QRS morphology) or in the presence of RBBB. Similar relationships were observed for all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: CRT is associated with reduced HFH or death in patients with QRS ≥150 ms and LBBB or IVCD, but not for those with RBBB. Aggregating RBBB and IVCD into a single "non-LBBB" category when selecting patients for CRT should be reconsidered. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00271154, NCT00251251, NCT00267098, and NCT00180271.

Benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy among older patients: A patient-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and mortality for guideline-indicated patients with heart failure (HF). Most patients with HF are aged ≥70 years but such patients are often under-represented in randomized trials. METHODS: Patient-level data were combined from 8 randomized trials published 2002-2013 comparing CRT to no CRT (n = 6,369). The effect of CRT was estimated using an adjusted Bayesian survival model. Using age as a categorical (<70 vs ≥70 years) or continuous variable, the interaction between age and CRT on the composite end point of HFH or all-cause mortality or all-cause mortality alone was assessed. RESULTS: The median age was 67 years with 2436 (38%) being 70+; 1,554 (24%) were women; 2,586 (41%) had nonischemic cardiomyopathy and median QRS duration was 160 ms. Overall, CRT was associated with a delay in time to the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.75, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.66-0.85, P = .002) and all-cause mortality alone (aHR of 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, P = .017). When age was treated as a categorical variable, there was no interaction between age and the effect of CRT for either end point (P > .1). When age was treated as a continuous variable, older patients appeared to obtain greater benefit with CRT for the composite end point (P for interaction = .027) with a similar but nonsignificant trend for mortality (P for interaction = .35). CONCLUSION: Reductions in HFH and mortality with CRT are as great or greater in appropriately indicated older patients. Age should not be a limiting factor for the provision of CRT.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with a prior history of atrial fibrillation: Insights from four major clinical trials.

AIMS: To investigate the association of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on outcomes among participants with and without a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Individual-patient-data from four randomized trials investigating CRT-Defibrillators (COMPANION, MADIT-CRT, REVERSE) or CRT-Pacemakers (COMPANION, MIRACLE) were analyzed. Outcomes were time to a composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality or to all-cause mortality alone. The association of CRT on outcomes for patients with and without a history of AF was assessed using a Bayesian-Weibull survival regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 3964 patients included, 586 (14.8%) had a history of AF; 2245 (66%) were randomized to CRT. Overall, CRT reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69, 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.56-0.81). The effect was similar (posterior probability of no interaction = 0.26) in patients with (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.55-1.10) and without a history of AF (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55-0.80). In these four trials, CRT did not reduce mortality overall (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.01) without evidence of interaction (posterior probability of no interaction = 0.14) for patients with (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.70-1.74) or without a history of AF (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97). CONCLUSION: The association of CRT on the composite endpoint or mortality was not statistically different for patients with or without a history of AF, but this could reflect inadequate power. Our results call for trials to confirm the benefit of CRT recipients with a history of AF.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Palliative Care: Insights from the PAL-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized control trial, Palliative Care in Heart Failure (PAL-HF) improved heart failure-related quality of life, though cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the PAL-HF trial, which provided outpatient palliative care to patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcomes for usual care and PAL-HF strategies were compared using a Markov cohort model over 36 months from a payer perspective. The model parameters were informed by PAL-HF trial data and supplemented with meta-analyses and Medicare administrative data. Outcomes included hospitalization, place of death, Medicare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Simulated mortality rates were the same for PAL-HF and usual care cohorts, at 89.7% at 36 months. In the base case analysis, the PAL-HF intervention resulted in an incremental gain of 0.03 QALYs and an incremental cost of $964 per patient for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,041 per QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, an intervention cost of up to $140 per month is cost effective at $50,000 per QALY. Of 1000 simulations, the PC intervention had a 66.1% probability of being cost effective at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold assuming no decrease in hospitalization. In a scenario analysis, PAL-HF decreased payer spending through reductions in noncardiovascular hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: These results from this single-center trial are encouraging that palliative care for advanced heart failure is an economically attractive intervention. Confirmation of these findings in larger multicenter trials will be an important part of developing the evidence to support more widespread implementation of the PAL-HF palliative care intervention.

Future research prioritization in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective for some patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), evidence gaps remain for key clinical and policy areas. The objective of the study was to review the data on the effects of CRT for patients with HFrEF receiving pharmacological therapy alone or pharmacological therapy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and then, informed by a diverse group of stakeholders, to identify evidence gaps, prioritize them, and develop a research plan. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified using PubMed and EMBASE and ongoing trials using clinicaltrials.gov. Forced-ranking prioritization method was applied by stakeholders to reach a consensus on the most important questions. Twenty-six stakeholders contributed to the expanded list of evidence gaps, including key investigators from existing randomized controlled trials and others representing different perspectives, including patients, the public, device manufacturers, and policymakers. RESULTS: Of the 18 top-tier evidence gaps, 8 were related to specific populations or subgroups of interest. Seven were related to the comparative effectiveness and safety of CRT interventions or comparators, and 3 were related to the association of CRT treatment with specific outcomes. The association of comorbidities with CRT effectiveness ranked highest, followed by questions about the effectiveness of CRT among patients with atrial fibrillation and the relationship between gender, QRS morphology and duration, and outcomes for patients either with CRT plus ICD or with ICD. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence gaps presented in this article highlight numerous, important clinical and policy questions for which there is inconclusive evidence on the role of CRT and provide a framework for future collaborative research.

Interventions for Preventing Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.

Background: The comparative safety and effectiveness of treatments to prevent thromboembolic complications in atrial fibrillation (AF) remain uncertain. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of medical and procedural therapies in preventing thromboembolic events and bleeding complications in adults with nonvalvular AF. Data Sources: English-language studies in several databases from 1 January 2000 to 14 February 2018. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened citations to identify comparative studies of treatments to prevent stroke in adults with nonvalvular AF who reported thromboembolic or bleeding complications. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed study quality and applicability, and rated strength of evidence. Data Synthesis: Data from 220 articles were included. Dabigatran and apixaban were superior and rivaroxaban and edoxaban were similar to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism. Apixaban and edoxaban were superior and rivaroxaban and dabigatran were similar to warfarin in reducing the risk for major bleeding. Treatment effects with dabigatran were similar in patients with renal dysfunction (interaction P > 0.05), and patients younger than 75 years had lower bleeding rates with dabigatran (interaction P < 0.001). The benefit of treatment with apixaban was consistent in many subgroups, including those with renal impairment, diabetes, and prior stroke (interaction P > 0.05 for all). The greatest bleeding risk reduction was observed in patients with a glomerular filtration rate less than 50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P = 0.003). Similar treatment effects were observed for rivaroxaban and edoxaban in patients with prior stroke, diabetes, or heart failure (interaction P > 0.05 for all). Limitation: Heterogeneous study populations, interventions, and outcomes. Conclusion: The available direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as effective and safe as warfarin for patients with nonvalvular AF. The DOACs had similar benefits across several patient subgroups and seemed safe and efficacious for a wide range of patients with nonvalvular AF. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42017069999).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular and surgical revascularization for patients with chronic lower extremity venous insufficiency and varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lower extremity venous disease (LECVD) is twice as prevalent as coronary heart disease, and invasive therapies to treat LECVD accounted for an estimated $290 million in Medicare expenditures in 2015. Despite increasing use of these invasive therapies, their comparative effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for patients (symptomatic and asymptomatic) with lower extremity varicosities and/or lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency/incompetence/reflux. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to July 2016. We included comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >20 patients and observational studies with >500 patients. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of placebo, mechanical compression therapy, and invasive therapies (surgical and endovascular) were included. Quality ratings and evidence grading was performed. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. RESULTS: We identified a total of 57 studies representing 105,878 enrolled patients, including 53 RCTs comprised of 10,034 patients. Among the RCTs, 16 were good quality, 28 were fair quality, and 9 were poor quality. Allocation concealment, double blinding, and reporting bias were inadequately addressed in 25 of 53 (47%), 46 of 53 (87%), and 15 of 53 (28.3%), respectively. Heterogeneity in therapies, populations, and/or outcomes prohibited meta-analysis of comparisons between different endovascular therapies and between endovascular intervention and placebo/compression. Meta-analysis evaluating venous stripping plus ligation (high ligation/stripping) compared with radiofrequency ablation revealed no difference in short-term bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=0.30, 95% CI -0.16 to 5.38, P=.43) or reflux recurrence at 1-2 years (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.37-1.55, P=.44). Meta-analysis evaluating high ligation/stripping versus endovascular laser ablation revealed no difference in long-term symptom score (OR 0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.23, P=.84) or quality of life at 2 years (OR 0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.25, P=.50). CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of high-quality comparative effectiveness and safety data in LECVD is concerning given the overall rise in endovascular procedures. More high-quality studies are needed to determine comparative effectiveness and guide policy and practice.

How well does early-career investigators' cardiovascular outcomes research training align with funded outcomes research?

BACKGROUND: Outcomes research training programs should prepare trainees to successfully compete for research funding. We examined how early-career investigators' prior and desired training aligns with recently funded cardiovascular (CV) outcomes research. METHODS: We (1) reviewed literature to identify 13 core competency areas in CV outcomes research; (2) surveyed early-career investigators to understand their prior and desired training in each competency area; (3) examined recently funded grants commonly pursued by early-career outcomes researchers to ascertain available funding in competency areas; and (4) analyzed alignment between investigator training and funded research in each competency area. We evaluated 185 survey responses from early-career investigators (response rate 28%) and 521 funded grants from 2010 to 2014. RESULTS: Respondents' prior training aligned with funded grants in the areas of clinical epidemiology, observational research, randomized controlled trials, and implementation/dissemination research. Funding in community-engaged research and health informatics was more common than prior training in these areas. Respondents' prior training in biostatistics and systematic review was more common than funded grants focusing on these specific areas. Respondents' desired training aligned similarly with funded grants, with some exceptions; for example, desired training in health economics/cost-effectiveness research was more common than funded grants in these areas. Restricting to CV grants (n=132) and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded grants (n=170) produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying mismatch between funded grants in outcomes research and early-career investigators' prior/desired training may help efforts to harmonize investigator interests, training, and funding. Our findings suggest a need for further consideration of how to best prepare early-career investigators for funding success.

Training cardiovascular outcomes researchers: A survey of mentees and mentors to identify critical training gaps and needs.

BACKGROUND: Many young investigators are interested in cardiovascular (CV) outcomes research; however, the current training experience of early investigators across the United States is uncertain. METHODS: From April to November 2014, we surveyed mentees and mentors of early-stage CV outcomes investigators across the United States. We contacted successful grantees of government agencies, members of professional organizations, and trainees in CV outcomes training programs. RESULTS: A total of 185 (of 662) mentees and 76 (of 541) mentors completed the survey. Mentees were equally split by sex; most had completed training >3 years before completing the survey and were clinicians. Mentors were more likely women, mostly ≥20 years posttraining, and at an associate/full professor rank. Mentors reported devoting more time currently to clinical work than when they were early in their career and mentoring 2-4 people simultaneously. More than 80% of mentees started training to become academicians and completed training with the same goal. More than 70% of mentees desired at least 50% research time in future jobs. More than 80% of mentors believed that future investigators would need more than 50% time dedicated to research. Most mentees (80%) were satisfied with their relationship with their mentor and reported having had opportunities to develop independently. Mentors more frequently than mentees reported that funding cutbacks had negatively affected mentees' ability to succeed (84% vs 58%). Across funding mechanisms, mentees were more optimistic than mentors about securing funding. Both mentees and mentors reported greatest preparedness for job/career satisfaction (79% for both) and publications (84% vs 92%) and least preparedness for future financial stability (48% vs 46%) and work-life balance (47% vs 42%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings may stimulate future discourse and research on how best to attract, train, and retain young investigators in CV outcomes research. Insights may help improve existing training programs and inform the design of new ones.

Single vs. dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are key in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but outcomes may vary by type of device or programming [single chamber (SC) vs. dual chamber (DC)] in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication. We sought to meta-analyse patient outcomes of randomized trials of SC vs. DC devices or programming. Methods and results: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials databases for relevant studies excluding those published before 2000, involving children, or not available in English. Endpoints included mortality, inappropriate ICD therapies, and implant complications. Endpoints with at least three reporting studies were meta-analysed. We identified eight studies meeting inclusion criteria representing 2087 patients with 16.1 months mean follow-up. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD 1.92); in six studies reporting sex, most patients were male (85%). Comparing patients with a SC or DC ICD or programming, we found similar rates of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.68; P = 0.86] and inappropriate therapies (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.19; P = 0.07) in five and six studies, respectively. In three studies of SC vs. DC ICDs (but not programming) rates of pneumothorax and lead dislodgement were not different (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.18-24.72; P = 0.55 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.32-2.47; P = 0.83, respectively). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SC vs. DC ICD device or programming, there was no significant difference in inappropriate therapies, mortality, pneumothorax, or lead dislodgement. Future studies should compare these devices over longer follow-up and in specific patient populations.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests and Treatment for Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Depression: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health-related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. LIMITATION: Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. CONCLUSION: Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).

New York Heart Association class and the survival benefit from primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A pooled analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduce all-cause mortality by reducing sudden cardiac death. There are conflicting data regarding whether patients with more advanced heart failure derive ICD benefit owing to the competing risk of nonsudden death. METHODS: We performed a patient-level meta-analysis of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) from 4 primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-I, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT). Bayesian-Weibull survival regression models were used to assess the impact of NYHA class on the relationship between ICD use and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2,763 patients who met study criteria, 68% (n=1,867) were NYHA II and 52% (n=1,435) were randomized to an ICD. In a multivariable model including all study patients, the ICD reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% posterior credibility interval [PCI]) 0.40-0.99). The interaction between NYHA class and the ICD on mortality was significant (posterior probability of no interaction=.036). In models including an interaction term for the NYHA class and ICD, the ICD reduced mortality among NYHA class II patients (HR 0.55, PCI 0.35-0.85), and the point estimate suggested reduced mortality in NYHA class III patients (HR 0.76, PCI 0.48-1.24), although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in NYHA class II patients and trend toward reducing mortality in the heterogeneous group of NYHA class III patients. Improved risk stratification tools are required to guide patient selection and shared decision making among NYHA class III primary prevention ICD candidates.

Predicting appropriate shocks in patients with heart failure: Patient level meta-analysis from SCD-HeFT and MADIT II.

BACKGROUND: No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. RESULTS: There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs. I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs. I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta-blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta-blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (vs. dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks.

Advancing Value Assessment in the United States: A Multistakeholder Perspective.

Rising costs without perceived proportional improvements in quality and outcomes have motivated fundamental shifts in health care delivery and payment to achieve better value. Aligned with these efforts, several value assessment frameworks have been introduced recently to help providers, patients, and payers better understand the potential value of drugs and other interventions and make informed decisions about their use. Given their early stage of development, it is imperative to evaluate these efforts on an ongoing basis to identify how best to support and improve them moving forward. This article provides a multistakeholder perspective on the key limitations and opportunities posed by the current value assessment frameworks and areas of and actions for improvement. In particular, we outline 10 fundamental guiding principles and associated strategies that should be considered in subsequent iterations of the existing frameworks or by emerging initiatives in the future. Although value assessment frameworks may not be able to meet all the needs and preferences of stakeholders, we contend that there are common elements and potential next steps that can be supported to advance value assessment in the United States.

Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

IMPORTANCE: Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. DESIGN: In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. FINDINGS: The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.

Future Research Prioritization: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death, there is considerable uncertainty about its benefits and harms in older patients, especially in the presence of factors, other than old age, that increase the risk of death. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritized research agenda for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute as informed by a diverse group of stakeholders on the use and outcomes of the ICD in older patients. DESIGN: The existing literature was reviewed to identify evidence gaps, which were then refined by engaged stakeholders. Using a forced-ranking prioritization method, the stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance. For the highest-ranked evidence gaps, relevant recent studies were identified using PubMed, and relevant ongoing trials were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen stakeholders, including clinical experts and researchers in the prevention of sudden cardiac death and ICD therapy, representatives from federal and non-governmental funding agencies, representatives from relevant professional societies, health care decision-makers and policymakers, and representatives from related consumer and patient advocacy groups KEY RESULTS: The top 12 evidence gaps prioritized by stakeholders were related to the safety and effectiveness of ICDs in older patient subgroups not well represented in clinical trials, predictors of SCD, the impact of the ICD on quality of life, the use of shared decision-making, disparities in ICD use, risk stratification strategies, patient preferences, and distribution of modes of death in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper, we identify evidence gaps of high priority for current and future investigations of ICD therapy. Addressing these gaps will likely resolve many of the uncertainties surrounding the use and outcomes of the ICD in older patients seen in clinical practice.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators in end-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis: a matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death among end-stage kidney disease patients (ESKD) on dialysis, but the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this population is uncertain. We conducted this investigation to compare the mortality of dialysis patients receiving a primary prevention ICD with matched controls. METHODS: We used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to select dialysis patients who received a primary prevention ICD, and the Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry to select a comparator cohort. We matched ICD recipients and no-ICD patients using propensity score techniques to reduce confounding, and overall survival was compared between groups. RESULTS: We identified 108 dialysis patients receiving primary prevention ICDs and 195 comparable dialysis patients without ICDs. One year (3-year) mortality was 42.2% (68.8%) in the ICD registry cohort compared with 38.1% (75.7%) in the control cohort. There was no significant survival advantage associated with ICD [hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.13, log-rank P = 0.29]. After propensity matching, our analysis included 86 ICD patients and 86 matched controls. Comparing the propensity-matched cohorts, 1 year (3 years) mortality was 43.4% (74.0%) in the ICD cohort and 39.7% (76.6%) in the control cohort; there was no significant difference in mortality outcome between groups (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.67-1.31, log-rank P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant association between primary prevention ICDs and reduced mortality among ESKD patients receiving dialysis. Consideration of the potential risks and benefits of ICD implantation in these patients should be undertaken while awaiting the results of definitive clinical trials.

Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ.

Ductal carcinoma in situ is a common finding in women having mammography screening, and there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of harms and benefits of different management options. This article outlines the process for developing a prioritized research agenda for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute as informed by a diverse group of stakeholders on the management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Evidence gaps were identified by reviewing existing literature and engaging diverse stakeholders to refine these gaps. Stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance from their perspectives using a forced-ranking prioritization method. PubMed was searched for relevant recent studies, and ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for relevant ongoing trials for the 10 highest-ranked evidence gaps. Strengths and limitations of different study designs were assessed to address gaps. Stakeholders prioritized evidence gaps related to incorporation of patient-centered outcomes into future research, development of better methods to predict risk for invasive cancer, evaluation of a strategy of active surveillance, and testing of decision-making tools. The degree to which prioritized evidence gaps may have already been addressed is uncertain because a comprehensive systematic review has not been done.

Prioritization of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability in the United States. This article describes a prioritized research agenda about osteoarthritis management developed for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Evidence gaps were identified by reviewing existing literature and engaging diverse stakeholders to expand and refine gaps. Stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance from their perspectives.Prioritized evidence gaps included the need to determine or evaluate key patient-centered outcomes; optimal duration, intensity, and frequency of nonsurgical interventions; whether the comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions varies by socioeconomic factors; when and how to transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions; effective ways to engage patients in self-management and promote long-term behavior change; standardized screening tools that improve early diagnosis; biomechanical strategies that improve symptoms; mechanisms for promoting and delivering coordinated, longitudinal care; and comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical therapies. Searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov showed many recent and ongoing studies addressing comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions; relatively few of these evaluated treatments across categories (for example, drug therapy vs. weight management) or combined categories of treatment. Few studies addressed other high-priority evidence gaps.