The FDA and Gene Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

This Viewpoint examines the appropriateness of FDA accelerated approval of novel gene therapies to treat boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy following clinical trials with surrogate outcomes that did not demonstrate net benefits.

How do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations. METHODS: We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement. RESULTS: Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

Gene therapies for sickle cell disease: Effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Drs. Nikitin, McKenna, Rind, Nhan, and Pearson report grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, 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, other from Sunlife, outside the submitted work.

GRADE concept 6: a novel application of external indirect evidence into GRADE ratings of evidence certainty in network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We describe how consideration of external evidence may play an important role in judging certainty in the process of establishing the certainty of the evidence. Our example is a network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing treatment for Ebola virus disease, which informed a World Health Organization guideline. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) project group iterative online, in-person and email discussions, we developed this GRADE concept and obtained approval from the GRADE working group. Using the null as a threshold, we rated our certainty for network estimates in mortality, including consideration of evidence external to the NMA (i.e., did not meet eligibility criteria) and formal logical construction. RESULTS: Based on the existing GRADE guidance, we rated the network estimate for one indirect comparison as low certainty. The formal logical construction that lead us reevaluate the certainty of the evidence is as follows: if A is superior to B, and B is not inferior to C, then A must be superior to C. After considering the logic and the external indirect evidence, we concluded at least moderate certainty for the comparison. CONCLUSION: Systematic review authors and guideline developers should apply the fundamental logical construction for indirect comparisons and consider compelling external evidence in NMA certainty ratings.

Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation concept article 5: addressing intransitivity in a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes considerations for addressing intransitivity when assessing the certainty of the evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Intransitivity is induced by effect modification, that is, when the magnitude of the effect between an intervention and outcome differs depending on the level of another factor. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To develop this GRADE concept paper, the lead authors conducted iterative discussions, computer simulations, and presentations to the GRADE project group and at GRADE working group meetings. The GRADE Working Group formally approved the article in July 2022. RESULTS: NMA authors can have a higher or a lower threshold to rate down the certainty of the evidence due to intransitivity, which depends on the extent of their concerns regarding the trustworthiness of indirect comparisons, and their view of the relative problems with rating down excessively or insufficiently. NMA authors should consider three main factors when addressing intransitivity: the credibility of effect modification, the strength of the effect modification, and the distribution of effect modifiers across the direct comparisons. To avoid double counting limitations of the evidence, authors should consider the relationship between intransitivity and other GRADE domains. CONCLUSION: NMA authors face theoretic and pragmatic challenges and in most situations need to assess intransitivity without the availability of empirical data. Thus, explicitness regarding perspective is crucial.

Evaluation of Diversity of Clinical Trials Informing Health Technology Assessments in the United States: A 5-Year Analysis of Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diversity of clinical trials informing assessments conducted by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of pivotal trials included in completed Institute for Clinical and Economic Review assessments over 5 years (2017-2021). Representation of racial/ethnic minority groups, females, and older adults was compared with the disease-specific and US population, using a relative representation cutoff of 0.8 for adequate representation. RESULTS: A total of 208 trials, evaluating 112 interventions for 31 unique conditions, were examined. Race/ethnicity data were inconsistently reported. The median participant-to-disease representative ratio (PDRR) for Blacks/African Americans (0.43 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.24-0.75]), American Indians/Alaska Natives (0.37 [IQR 0.09-0.77]), and Hispanics/Latinos (0.79 [IQR 0.30-1.22]) were below the adequate representation cutoff. In contrast, Whites (1.06 [IQR 0.92-1.2]), Asians (1.71 [IQR 0.50-3.75]), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders (1.61 [IQR 0.77-2.81]) were adequately represented. Findings were similar when compared with the US Census, except for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, which was substantially worse. Relative to all trials, a higher proportion of US-based trials adequately represented Blacks/African Americans (61% vs 23%, P < .0001) and Hispanics/Latinos (68% vs 50%; P = .047), but a lower proportion adequately represented Asians (15% vs 67%, P < .0001). Females were adequately represented in 74% of trials (PDRR: 1.02 [IQR 0.79-1.14]). Nevertheless, older adults were adequately represented in only 20% of trials (PDRR: 0.30 [IQR 0.13-0.64]). CONCLUSIONS: The representation of racial/ethnic minorities and older adults was inadequate. Efforts are needed to enhance the diversity of clinical trials. Standardized and transparent evaluation of trial diversity should be part of the health technology assessment process.

The effectiveness and value of gene therapy for hemophilia: A Summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's California Technology Assessment Forum.

DISCLOSURES: Dr Tice and Mr Sarker received ICER grants during the conduct of the study. Dr Moradi, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Dr Faghim, Dr Agboola, Dr Rind, and Dr Pearson reports grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from Aetna, 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 Cambia Health Services, 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 Health Partners, other from Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), 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 Spark Therapeutics, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Nadofaragene Firadenovec and Pembrolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Immunotherapy Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness.

The estimated costs and benefits of a hypothetical supervised consumption site in Providence, Rhode Island.

BACKGROUND: Overdose deaths have increased dramatically in the United States, including in Rhode Island. In July 2021, the Rhode Island government passed legislation supporting a two-year pilot program authorizing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in response to this crisis. We estimated the costs and benefits of a hypothetical SCS in Providence, Rhode Island. METHODS: We utilized a decision analytic mathematical model to compare costs and outcomes for people who inject drugs under two scenarios: (1) a SCS that includes syringe services provision, and (2) a syringe service program only (i.e., status quo). We assumed 0.95% of injections result in overdose, the SCS would serve 400 clients monthly and have a net cost of $783,899 annually, 46% of overdoses occurring outside of the SCS result in an ambulance run and 43% result in an emergency department (ED) visit, 0.79% of overdoses occurring within the SCS result in an ambulance run and ED visit, and the SCS would lead to a 25.7% reduction in fatal overdoses near the site. The model was developed from a modified societal perspective with a one-year time horizon. RESULTS: A hypothetical SCS in Providence would prevent approximately 2 overdose deaths, 261 ambulance runs, 244 ED visits, and 117 inpatient hospitalizations for emergency overdose care annually compared to a scenario that includes a syringe service program only. The SCS would save $1,104,454 annually compared to the syringe service program only, accounting only for facility costs and short-term costs of emergency overdose care and ignoring savings associated with averted deaths. Influential parameters included the percentage of injections resulting in overdose, the total annual injections at the SCS, and the percentage of overdoses outside of the SCS that result in an ED visit. CONCLUSION: A SCS in would result in substantial cost savings due to prevention of costly emergency overdose care.

The effectiveness and value of tezepelumab for severe asthma.

DISCLOSURES: Drs Rind, Campbell, Pearson, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Ms Fluetsch, and Ms Herron-Smith report grants from Arnold Ventures; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc; The Patrick and Catherine Donaghue Medical Research Foundation; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; and California Healthcare Foundation during the course of this study.

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.

Mavacamten for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Beinfeld, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Wasfy, Walton, and Sarker received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary. Walton also reports consulting fees from Second City Outcomes Research. Wasfy reports personal fees from Biotronik and Pfizer; grants from National Institutes of Health, National Football League Players Association and American Heart Association; and travel support from American College of Cardiology. Sarker has nothing additional to disclose.

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.