Differences in cardiac testing resource utilization using two different risk stratification schemes.

OBJECTIVE: Assess whether changing an emergency department (ED) chest pain pathway from utilizing the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score for risk stratification to an approach utilizing the History, EKG, Age, Risk, Troponin (HEART) score was associated with reductions in healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective, quasi-experimental study using difference-in-differences and interrupted time series specifications evaluated all ED patients with a chest pain encounter from 8/2015 to 7/2019 at a large academic medical center. We included patients age ≥ 18 with negative troponin testing discharged from the ED. Our standardized care pathway utilized TIMI for risk stratification until 09/2017 and HEART thereafter. We evaluated patients undergoing hospital-based cardiac diagnostic testing (CDT), length of stay (LOS), and 30-day Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) at the intervention site before and after the pathway change and compared these outcomes to a similar control site within the health system for the difference-in-differences specification. RESULTS: During the study period, 6.3% (450 of 7117) of patients in the TIMI cohort and 7.2% (546 of 7623) in the HEART cohort among 400,965 total ED visits underwent CDT. In a multivariable analysis, transition to the HEART pathway was associated with greater odds of receiving CDT (odds ratio 2.88 [95% CI 1.21 to 6.86]), a reduction in LOS of 34 min (95% CI 2.2 to 67.6), and no significant difference in 30-day MACE. CONCLUSION: The transition from TIMI to HEART was associated with mixed consequences for healthcare resource utilization, including increased CDT but reduced length of stay.

The Influence of the Rural Transitions Nurse Program for Veterans on Healthcare Utilization Costs.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System Rural Transitions Nurse Program (TNP) addresses barriers veterans face when transitioning from urban tertiary VA hospitals to home. Previous clinical evaluations of TNP have shown that enrolled veterans were more likely to follow up with their primary care provider within 14 days of discharge and experience a significant reduction in mortality within 30 days compared to propensity-score matched controls. OBJECTIVE: Examine changes from pre- to post-hospitalization in total, inpatient, and outpatient 30-day healthcare utilization costs for TNP enrollees compared to controls. DESIGN: Quantitative analyses modeling the changes in cost via multivariable linear mixed-effects models to determine the association between TNP enrollment and changes in these costs. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans meeting TNP eligibility criteria who were discharged home following an inpatient hospitalization at one of the 11 implementation sites from April 2017 to September 2019. INTERVENTION: The four-step TNP transitional care intervention. MAIN MEASURES: Changes in 30-day total, inpatient, and outpatient healthcare utilization costs were calculated for TNP enrollees and controls. KEY RESULTS: Among 3001 TNP enrollees and 6002 controls, no statistically significant difference in the change in total costs (p = 0.65, 95% CI: (- $675, $350)) was identified. However, on average, the increase in inpatient costs from pre- to post-hospitalization was approximately $549 less for TNP enrollees (p = 0.02, 95% CI: (- $856, - $246)). The average increase in outpatient costs from pre- to post-hospitalization was approximately $421 more for TNP enrollees compared to controls (p = 0.003, 95% CI: ($109, $671)). CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no difference in change in total costs between veterans enrolled in TNP and controls, TNP was associated with a smaller increase in direct inpatient medical costs and a larger increase in direct outpatient medical costs. This suggests a shifting of costs from the inpatient to outpatient setting.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Remdesivir for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir, the first novel therapeutic to receive Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and identify key drivers of value to guide future pricing and reimbursement efforts. METHODS: A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a US healthcare sector perspective. A lifetime time horizon captured potential long-term costs and outcomes. Model outcomes included discounted total costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Remdesivir was modeled as an addition to standard of care and compared with standard of care alone, including dexamethasone for patients requiring respiratory support. COVID-19 hospitalizations were assumed to be reimbursed through a single payment based on the respiratory support received alongside a remdesivir carveout payment in the base case. Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified key drivers. RESULTS: At a unit price of $520 per vial and assuming no survival benefit with remdesivir, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $298 200/QALY for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and $1 847 000/QALY for patients with mild COVID-19. Although current data do not support a survival benefit, if one was assumed, the cost-effectiveness estimate was $50 100/QALY for the moderate to severe population and $103 400/QALY for the mild population. Another key driver included the hospitalization payment structure (per diem vs bundled payment). CONCLUSIONS: With the current evidence available, remdesivir's price is too high to align with its expected health gains for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results from this study provide a rationale for iterative health technology assessment.

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Overvalue Potential Cures? Exploring Alternative Methods for Applying a "Shared Savings" Approach to Cost Offsets.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs. RESULTS: The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing. CONCLUSIONS: Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.

The direct and indirect costs of Dravet Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the annual direct and indirect costs associated with Dravet Syndrome (DS). METHODS: A survey was electronically administered to the caregivers of patients with DS treated at Children's Hospital Colorado. Survey domains included healthcare utilization of the patient with DS and DS caregiver work productivity and activity impairment. Patient healthcare utilization was measured using modified questions from the National Health Interview Survey; caregiver work productivity and activity impairment were measured using modified questions from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Direct costs were calculated by multiplying the caregiver-reported healthcare utilization rates by the mean unit cost for each healthcare utilization category. Indirect costs included lost productivity, income loss, and lost leisure time. The indirect costs were a function of caregiver-reported hours spent caregiving and an hourly unit cost. RESULTS: The survey was emailed to 60 DS caregivers, of which 34 (57% response rate) responded. Direct costs on average were $27,276 (95% interval: $15,757, $41,904) per patient with DS. Hospitalizations ($11,565 a year) and in-home medical care visits ($9894 a year) were substantial cost drivers. Additionally, caregivers reported extensive time spent providing care to an individual with DS. This caregiver time resulted in average annual indirect costs of $81,582 (95% interval: $57,253, $110,151), resulting in an average total annual financial burden of $106,378 (95% interval: $78,894, $137,906). CONCLUSION: Dravet Syndrome results in substantial healthcare utilization, financial burden, and time commitment. Establishing evidence on the financial burden of DS is essential to understanding the overall impact of DS, identifying potential areas for support needs, and assessing the impact of novel treatments as they become available. Based on the study findings, in-home visits, hospitalizations, and lost productivity and leisure time of caregivers are key domains for DS economic evaluations. Future research should extend these estimates to include the potential additional healthcare utilization of the DS caregiver.

Assessing the impact of caring for a child with Dravet syndrome: Results of a caregiver survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and quantify the impact of caring for a child with Dravet syndrome (DS) on caregivers. METHODS: We surveyed DS caregivers at a single institution with a large population of patient with DS. Survey domains included time spent/difficulty performing caregiving tasks (Oberst Caregiving Burden Scale, OCBS); caregiver health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5D-5L, EQ-5D); and work/activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, WPAI). Modified National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) questions were included to assess logistical challenges associated with coordinating medical care. RESULTS: Thirty-four primary caregivers responded, and 30/34 respondents completed the survey. From OCBS, providing transportation, personal care, and additional household tasks required the greatest caregiver time commitment; arranging for child care, communication, and managing behavioral problems presented the greatest difficulty. EuroQoL 5D-5L domains with the greatest impact on caregivers (0=none, 5=unable/extreme) were anxiety/depression (70% of respondents≥slight problems, 34%≥moderate) and discomfort/pain (57% of respondents≥slight problems, 23%≥moderate). The mean EQ-5D general health visual analogue scale (VAS) score (0=death; 100=perfect health) was 67 (range, 11-94). Respondents who scored <65 were two- to fourfold more likely to report ≥moderate time spent and difficulty managing child behavior problems and assisting with walking, suggesting that children with DS with high degrees of motor or neurodevelopmental problems have an especially high impact on caregiver health. On the WPAI, 26% of caregivers missed >1day of work in the previous week, with 43% reporting substantial impact (≥6, scale=1-10) on work productivity; 65% reported switching jobs, quitting jobs, or losing a job due to caregiving responsibilities. National Health Interview Survey responses indicated logistical burdens beyond the home; 50% of caregivers made ≥10 outpatient visits in the past year with their child with DS. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for patients with DS exerts physical, emotional, and time burdens on caregivers. Supportive services for DS families are identified to highlight an unmet need for DS treatments.

UK survey of non-medical use of prescription drugs (NMURx) as a valuable source of general population illicit drug use data.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: The aim of the study is to describe the prevalence of illicit drug use in England and Wales using data from the UK Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs (NMURx) programme and to compare against the well-established Crime Survey England and Wales (CSEW). The rationale is that recreational and illicit drug use is common, but the prevalence is difficult to estimate with personal interviewing methods. STUDY DESIGN: We compared two cross-sectional population surveys (NMURx, n=8903 and CSEW, n=20 685) with data regarding self-reported recreational drug use and demographics. NMURx is an online survey using non-probability sampling methodology with preset demographical quotas based on census data. CSEW surveys drug use via computer-assisted self-interviewing as part of a computer-assisted personal-interviewing crime survey. RESULTS: Cannabis was the most frequently used drug regardless of demographics. Prevalence of drug use for specific substances was generally higher for males, younger ages and students. The relationship between income and drug misuse is less clear. Self-reported prevalence of drug use in the NMURx survey is consistently higher than CSEW (absolute difference 1%-3 % across substances and timescales) and persists after stratification for gender, age, student status and household income. CONCLUSIONS: The NMURx survey has a broad reach of participants, and a sampling scheme that achieves external validity, compared with general population demographics. NMURx's online format allows flexibility in items surveyed and in response to emerging trends. The self-reported drug use in the NMURx cohort is comparable, although slightly higher, than the CSEW estimates.

Recommendations for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prevention in Adult ICUs: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients in the ICU are at the greatest risk of contracting healthcare-associated infections like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This study calculates the cost-effectiveness of methicillin-resistant S aureus prevention strategies and recommends specific strategies based on screening test implementation. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from the hospital perspective was conducted to determine if the implementation costs of methicillin-resistant S aureus prevention strategies are justified by associated reductions in methicillin-resistant S aureus infections and improvements in quality-adjusted life years. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined the influence of input variation on the cost-effectiveness. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Hypothetical cohort of adults admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Three prevention strategies were evaluated, including universal decolonization, targeted decolonization, and screening and isolation. Because prevention strategies have a screening component, the screening test in the model was varied to reflect commonly used screening test categories, including conventional culture, chromogenic agar, and polymerase chain reaction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Universal and targeted decolonization are less costly and more effective than screening and isolation. This is consistent for all screening tests. When compared with targeted decolonization, universal decolonization is cost-saving to cost-effective, with maximum cost savings occurring when a hospital uses more expensive screening tests like polymerase chain reaction. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with screening and isolation, the current standard practice in ICUs, targeted decolonization, and universal decolonization are less costly and more effective. This supports updating the standard practice to a decolonization approach.

Value of Public Health Funding in Preventing Hospital Bloodstream Infections in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the association of 1 activity of the Prevention and Public Health Fund with hospital bloodstream infections and calculate the return on investment (ROI). METHODS: The activity was funded for 1 year (2013). A difference-in-differences specification evaluated hospital standardized infection ratios (SIRs) before funding allocation (years 2011 and 2012) and after funding allocation (years 2013 and 2014) in the 15 US states that received the funding compared with hospital SIRs in states that did not receive the funding. We estimated the association of the funded public health activity with SIRs for bloodstream infections. We calculated the ROI by dividing cost offsets from infections averted by the amount invested. RESULTS: The funding was associated with a 33% (P < .05) reduction in SIRs and an ROI of $1.10 to $11.20 per $1 invested in the year of funding allocation (2013). In 2014, after the funding stopped, significant reductions were no longer evident. CONCLUSIONS: This activity was associated with a reduction in bloodstream infections large enough to recoup the investment. Public health funding of carefully targeted areas may improve health and reduce health care costs.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control. RESULTS: Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.

An Alternative Measure of Health for Value Assessment: The Equal Value Life-Year.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is an international standard in cost-effectiveness analysis. A known concern arises from the relatively lower QALY gains attributed to treatments that extend the life of individuals with chronic disability. We analyze here the advantages and disadvantages of the equal value life-year (evLY) as an alternative or a complementary measure to the QALY, and share learned experiences from using this measure in health technology assessments. We present the conceptual rationale for the evLY, describe how it is estimated, and assess the differences in results between analyses based on the evLY and the QALY. We share a how-to guide in estimating the evLY using a downloadable tool and summarize our empirical experience using this measure. Incremental evLYs are feasible and address concerns regarding the risk for a cost-effectiveness analysis to undervalue treatments for people with chronic disabilities. Based on our set of analyses using the evLY, a threshold of $84,000 per evLY gained would be needed to maintain alignment with a threshold of $100,000 per added QALY. The evLY is a measure of health gain that can be used as an alternative or a complement to the QALY to address concerns related to undervaluing treatments that extend the life of individuals with serious illness or chronic disability. We recommend that it be reported within all cost-effectiveness analyses but may have special relevance in the current political environment in the USA, where use of the QALY is often challenged or prohibited.

Oral and monoclonal antibody treatments for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis: Effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Ms McKenna, Dr Lin, Dr Whittington, Mr Nikitin, Ms Herron-Smith, Dr Campbell, and Dr Peterson report grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, and grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, and other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for 'Living HTA' where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

Cost-effectiveness of Lifestyle Africa: an adaptation of the diabetes prevention programme for delivery by community health workers in urban South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle Africa is an adapted version of the Diabetes Prevention Program designed for delivery by community health workers to socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Results from the Lifestyle Africa trial conducted in an under-resourced community in South Africa indicated that the programme had a significant effect on reducing haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of implementation and the cost-effectiveness (in cost per point reduction in HbA1c) of the Lifestyle Africa programme to inform decision-makers of the resources required and the value of this intervention. METHODS: Interviews were held with project administrators to identify the activities and resources required to implement the intervention. A direct-measure micro-costing approach was used to determine the number of units and unit cost for each resource. The incremental cost per one point improvement in HbA1c was calculated. RESULTS: The intervention equated to 71 United States dollars (USD) in implementation costs per participant and a 0.26 improvement in HbA1c per participant. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle Africa reduced HbA1c for relatively little cost and holds promise for addressing chronic disease in LMIC. Decision-makers should consider the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention when making resource allocation decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration is at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03342274).

Performing Cost-Effectiveness Analyses to Support Policy Making: Key Lessons From the Assessment of Aducanumab.

The purpose of this article is to describe the process and the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians interested in joining or leading aspects of this branch of evidence-based research. Cost-effectiveness is a useful tool for policymakers and is considered a starting point for discussions of fair pricing. Clinicians are important members of teams conducting cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly as it relates to integrating their clinical expertise into the decisions around the design and conduct of the analysis. Their input is essential in assuring that models adequately reflect clinical practice and are informed by expert judgments of how existing data can best be interpreted to build a comprehensive analysis of the clinical and economic outcomes of different treatment options. We illustrate specific contributions that clinicians are well positioned to make in these teams using a recent cost-effectiveness analysis of aducanumab that was conducted to support fair drug pricing. While discussing these contributions, we explain key components of a cost-effectiveness analysis, such as time horizon, health states, and perspective, to support understanding of the methods of cost-effectiveness by the clinical researchers and to promote a common dialogue among these multidisciplinary teams.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value-Based Pricing of Aducanumab for Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aducanumab was granted accelerated approval with a conflicting evidence base, near-unanimous Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee vote to reject approval, and a widely criticized launch price of $56,000 per year. The objective of this analysis was to estimate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to compare aducanumab in addition to supportive care to supportive care alone over a lifetime horizon. Results were presented from both the health system and modified societal perspective. The model tracked the severity of disease and the care setting. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and a threshold analysis was conducted to estimate at what price aducanumab would meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: Using estimates of effectiveness based on pooling of data from both pivotal trials, patients treated with aducanumab spent 4 more months in earlier stages of Alzheimer disease. Over the lifetime time horizon, treating a patient with aducanumab results in 0.154 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and 0.201 equal value of life-years gained (evLYG) per patient from the health care system perspective, with additional costs of approximately $204,000 per patient. The incremental outcomes were similar for the modified societal perspective. At the launch price of $56,000 per year, the cost-effectiveness ranged from $1.02 million per evLYG to $1.33 million per QALY gained from the health care system perspective and from $938,000 per evLYG to $1.27 million per QALY gained in the modified societal perspective. The annual price to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds ranged from $2,950 to $8,360, which represents a discount of 85%-95% off from the annual launch price set by the manufacturer. Using estimates of effectiveness based only on the trial that suggested a benefit, the mean incremental cost was greater than $400,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with aducanumab received minimal improvements in health outcomes at considerable cost. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that far exceeded commonly used value thresholds, even under optimistic treatment effectiveness assumptions. These findings are subject to the substantial uncertainty regarding whether aducanumab provides any true net health benefit, but evidence available currently suggests that an annual price of aducanumab of $56,000 is not in reasonable alignment with its clinical benefits.

Oral treatments for outpatient COVID-19: Effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Ms Beinfeld and Nahn and Drs Whittington, Mohammed, and Pearson report grants from Arnold Ventures, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, and The Commonwealth Foundation, during the conduct of the study; and other from America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Humana, Sun Life, and Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, outside the submitted work. Dr Yeung received a contract from ICER to be an evidence author for COVID-19 outpatient treatments.

A Systems-Based Morbidity and Mortality Conference Was Associated With a Transient Reduction in ECG Completion Times.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: During its monthly morbidity and mortality conference (MMC), the University of Colorado Division of Cardiology reviewed a "near-miss" patient safety event involving the delayed completion of a Stat-priority (ie, statim, meaning high priority) electrocardiogram (ECG). Because critical and interprofessional stakeholders participated in the conference, we hypothesized that the MMC would be associated with reduced ECG completion times. METHODS: Data were collected for in-hospital ECGs performed at the University of Colorado Hospital between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. An interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate the immediate and ongoing impact of the MMC (held on February 28, 2018) on ECG completion times, stratified by order priority (Stat, Now, or Routine). The percentage of delayed Stat-priority ECGs was analyzed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Before the MMC, ECG completion times were stable for all order priorities ( P > .2), but the proportion of delayed Stat-priority ECGs increased from 5% in January 2017 to 20% in February 2018 ( P < .01). The MMC was associated with an immediate reduction in average daily ECG completion times for Routine (-18.4 minutes, P = .03) and Now (-8 minutes, P = .024) priority ECGs. No reduction was seen for Stat ECGs ( P = .97), though the percentage of delayed Stat ECGs stopped increasing ( P = .63). In the post-MMC period, completion times for Routine-priority ECGs increased and approached pre-MMC levels. CONCLUSIONS: The MMC was associated with an immediate, but temporary, improvement in ECG completion times. Although the observed clinical benefit of the MMC is novel, these data support the need for more durable reforms to sustain initial improvements.

The effectiveness and value of aducanumab for Alzheimer's disease.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Whittington, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Synnott and Lin received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary. In addition, Synnott reports support from Biogen for the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, which is maintained by the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health.