Risk perception and intended behavior change after uninformative genetic results for adult-onset hereditary conditions in unselected patients.

Population genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions may improve disease management and morbidity but most individuals will receive uninformative results that do not indicate higher risk for disease. Investigation into subsequent psychosocial health and behaviors is necessary to inform population screening feasibility, effectiveness, and cost considerations. We conducted a prospective survey study of unselected University of Washington Medicine patients enrolled in a genetic research study screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes. Survey questions adapted from the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) questionnaire and designed to understand perceived disease risk change and planned health behaviors were administered after receipt of results. Overall, 2761 people received uninformative results and 1352 (49%) completed survey items. Respondents averaged 41 years old, 62% were female, and 56% were Non-Hispanic Asian. Results from the FACToR instrument showed mean (SD) scores of 0.92 (1.34), 7.63 (3.95), 1.65 (2.23), and 0.77 (1.50) for negative emotions, positive emotions, uncertainty, and privacy concerns, respectively, suggesting minimal psychosocial harms from genetic screening. Overall, 12.2% and 9.6% of survey respondents believed that their risk of cancer or heart disease, respectively, had changed after receiving their uninformative genetic screening results. Further, 8.5% of respondents planned to make healthcare changes and 9.1% other behavior changes. Future work is needed to assess observed behavior changes attributable to uninformative screening results and if small changes in behavior among this population have large downstream impacts.

Budget impact of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adults at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing can identify cancer risk early, enabling prevention and early detection. We describe use of risk management interventions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study. CHARM assessed risk and provided genetic testing to low income, low literacy, and other underserved populations that historically face barriers to accessing cancer genetic services. METHODS: CHARM was implemented in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Denver Health (DH) between 2018 and 2020. We identified post-testing screening (mammography, breast MRI, colonoscopy) and surgical (mastectomy, oophorectomy) procedures using electronic health records. We examined utilization in participants who did and did not receive actionable risk management recommendations from study genetic counselors following national guidelines. RESULTS: CHARM participants were followed for an average of 15.4 months (range: 0.4-27.8 months) after results disclosure. Less than 2% (11/680) received actionable risk management recommendations (i.e., could be completed in the initial years following testing) based on their test result. Among those who received actionable recommendations, risk management utilization was moderate (54.5%, 6/11 completed any procedure) and varied by procedure (mammogram: 0/3; MRI: 2/4; colonoscopy: 4/5; mastectomy: 1/5; oophorectomy: 0/3). Cancer screening and surgery procedures were rare in participants without actionable recommendations. CONCLUSION: Though the number of participants who received actionable risk management recommendations was small, our results suggest that implementing CHARM's risk assessment and testing model increased access to evidence-based genetic services and provided opportunities for patients to engage in recommended preventive care, without encouraging risk management overuse.

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

Population Genomic Screening for Three Common Hereditary Conditions : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. population for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 genomic conditions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). DESIGN: Decision analytic Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Separate age-based cohorts (ages 20 to 60 years at time of screening) of racially and ethnically representative U.S. adults. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care payer. INTERVENTION: Population genomic screening using clinical sequencing with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes, cascade testing of first-degree relatives, and recommended preventive interventions for identified probands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cases; incident cardiovascular events; quality-adjusted survival; and costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Screening 100 000 unselected 30-year-olds resulted in 101 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 77 to 127) fewer overall cancer cases and 15 (95% UI, 4 to 28) fewer cardiovascular events and an increase of 495 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% UI, 401 to 757) at an incremental cost of $33.9 million (95% UI, $27.0 million to $41.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68 600 per QALY gained (95% UI, $41 800 to $88 900). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old cohorts was cost-effective in 99%, 88%, and 19% of probabilistic simulations, respectively, at a $100 000-per-QALY threshold. The test costs at which screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds reached the $100 000-per-QALY threshold were $413, $290, and $166, respectively. Variant prevalence and adherence to preventive interventions were also highly influential parameters. LIMITATIONS: Population averages for model inputs, which were derived predominantly from European populations, vary across ancestries and health care environments. CONCLUSION: Population genomic screening with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes associated with 3 CDC Tier 1 conditions is likely to be cost-effective in U.S. adults younger than 40 years if the testing cost is relatively low and probands have access to preventive interventions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Human Genome Research Institute.

Key drivers of family-level utility of pediatric genomic sequencing: a qualitative analysis to support preference research.

Given that pediatric genomic sequencing (GS) may have implications for the health and well-being of both the child and family, a clearer understanding of the key drivers of the utility of GS from the family perspective is needed. The purpose of this study is to explore what is important to caregivers of pediatric patients regarding clinical GS, with a focus on family-level considerations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers (n = 41) of pediatric patients who had been recommended for or completed GS that explored the scope of factors caregivers considered when deciding whether to pursue GS for their child. We analyzed the qualitative data in multiple rounds of coding using thematic analysis. Caregivers raised important family-level considerations, in addition to those specifically for their child, which included wanting the best chance at good quality of life for the family, the ability to learn about family health, the impact on the caregiver's well-being, privacy concerns among family members, and the cost of testing to the family. We developed a framework of key drivers of utility consisting of four domains that influenced caregivers' decision making: underlying values, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and other pragmatic considerations regarding GS. These findings can inform measurement approaches that better capture the utility of pediatric GS for families and improve assessments of the value of clinical GS.

Exploring Providers' Perception to Naloxone Education for Opioid Overdose After Receiving Academic Detailing at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Introduction: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in partnership with the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) Program, implemented the National Academic Detailing Service to deliver naloxone education to providers with patients at-risk for opioid-related overdose. Methods: We administered a 26-item online survey to VA providers to explore their perceptions about prescribing naloxone for opioid overdose emergencies and their experience with academic detailing between August 2017 and April 2018. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics to (1) explore their current perceptions of naloxone prescribing and their experience with academic detailing, (2) identify differences across provider types [primary care providers (PCP), specialists, and others], and (3) assess perceived naloxone prescribing behavior change after an academic detailing visit. Results: Providers (N = 137) indicated that they were practicing at a level that was consistent with VA goals to promote take-home naloxone to reverse opioid-related overdose events. Average domain scores were similar across PCP, specialist, and other provider types. Specialists reported a higher average attitude domain score (+.56, P = .011) and perceived barriers domain score (+.82, P = .009) than PCPs. Most providers agreed that they prescribed naloxone more frequently due to academic detailing (53%) and indicated that they synthesized information from the academic detailer to change their naloxone prescribing practice (60%). Discussion: VA providers' perceptions of take-home naloxone were aligned with current evidence-based practice. Moreover, providers reported increasing their naloxone prescribing and synthesizing OEND-related information after an academic detailing interaction. Understanding providers' perceptions can be used to improve and enhance the academic detailing program's effectiveness.

Residual Disease Burden After Neoadjuvant Therapy Among US Patients With High-Risk HER2-positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Population Effectiveness Model.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of patients with high-risk HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) do not have pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. The residual burden of disease among this population has not been previously quantified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used decision-modeling techniques to simulate recurrence, progression from locoregional to distant cancer, breast cancer-related mortality, and mortality from other causes over a 10-year period in a hypothetical cohort. We derived progression probabilities primarily from the KATHERINE trial of T-DM1 (ado-trastuzumab emtansine) and mortality outcomes from the published literature. Modeled outcomes included recurrences, breast cancer deaths, deaths from other causes, direct medical costs, and costs due to lost productivity. To estimate the residual disease burden, we compared outcomes from a cohort of patients treated with T-DM1 versus a hypothetical cohort with no disease recurrence. RESULTS: We estimated that 9,300 people would experience incident high-risk HER2-positive ESBC in the United States in 2021 based on cancer surveillance databases, clinical trial data, and expert opinion. We estimated that, in this group, 2,118 would experience disease recurrence, including 1,576 distant recurrences, and 1,358 would experience breast cancer deaths. This residual disease burden resulted in 6,435 life-years lost versus the recurrence-free cohort, and healthcare-related costs totaling $644 million, primarily associated with treating distant cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients with HER2-positive ESBC who do not achieve pCR after neoadjuvant therapy are at ongoing risk of recurrence despite the effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment. There is substantial clinical and economic value in further reducing the residual disease burden in this population.

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Population genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in unselected individuals can prevent premature cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of population-wide FH genomic screening versus no genomic screening. METHODS: We developed a decision tree plus 10-state Markov model evaluating the identification of patients with an FH variant, statin treatment status, LDL-C levels, MI, and stroke to compare the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness of population-wide FH genomic screening. FH variant prevalence (0.4%) was estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode). Genomic test costs were assumed to be $200. Age and sex-based estimates of MI, recurrent MI, stroke, and recurrent stroke were obtained from Framingham risk equations. Additional outcomes independently associated with FH variants were derived from a retrospective analysis of 26,025 participants screened for FH. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. RESULTS: FH screening was most effective at younger ages; screening unselected 20-year-olds lead to 111 QALYs gained per 100,000 individuals screened at an incremental cost of $20 M. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for 20-year-olds was $181,000 per QALY, and there was a 38% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. If genomic testing cost falls to $100, the ICER would be $91,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Population FH screening is not cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds. However, reducing test costs, testing at younger ages, or including FH within broader multiplex screening panels may improve clinical and economic value.

Impact of a Population Genomic Screening Program on Health Behaviors Related to Familial Hypercholesterolemia Risk Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding clinician and participant behaviors after disclosure of genomic risk variants for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) from a population genomic screening program. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of MyCode participants with an FH risk variant beginning 2 years before disclosure until January 16, 2019. We analyzed lipid-lowering prescriptions (clinician behavior), medication adherence (participant behavior), and LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol levels (health outcome impact) pre- and post-disclosure. Data were collected from electronic health records and claims. RESULTS: The cohort included 96 participants of mean age 57 (22-90) years with median follow-up of 14 (range, 3-39) months. Most (90%) had a hypercholesterolemia diagnosis but no specific FH diagnosis before disclosure; 29% had an FH diagnosis post-disclosure. After disclosure, clinicians made 36 prescription changes in 38% of participants, mostly in participants who did not achieve LDL cholesterol goals pre-disclosure (81%). However, clinicians wrote prescriptions for fewer participants post-disclosure (71/96, 74.0%) compared with pre-disclosure (81/96, 84.4%); side effects were documented for most discontinued prescriptions (23/25, 92%). Among the 16 participants with claims data, medication adherence improved (proportion of days covered pre-disclosure of 70% [SD, 24.7%] to post-disclosure of 79.1% [SD, 27.3%]; P=0.05). Among the 52 (54%) participants with LDL cholesterol values both before and after disclosure, average LDL cholesterol decreased from 147 to 132 mg/dL (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Despite disclosure of an FH risk variant, nonprescribing and nonadherence to lipid-lowering therapy remained high. However, when clinicians intensified medication regimens and participants adhered to medications, lipid levels decreased.

Cost-effectiveness frameworks for comparing genome and exome sequencing versus conventional diagnostic pathways: A scoping review and recommended methods.

PURPOSE: Methodological challenges have limited economic evaluations of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES). Our objective was to develop conceptual frameworks for model-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of diagnostic GS/ES. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of economic analyses to develop and iterate with experts a set of conceptual CEA frameworks for GS/ES for prenatal testing, early diagnosis in pediatrics, diagnosis of delayed-onset disorders in pediatrics, genetic testing in cancer, screening of newborns, and general population screening. RESULTS: Reflecting on 57 studies meeting inclusion criteria, we recommend the following considerations for each clinical scenario. For prenatal testing, performing comparative analyses of costs of ES strategies and postpartum care, as well as genetic diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. For early diagnosis in pediatrics, modeling quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs over ≥20 years for rapid turnaround GS/ES. For hereditary cancer syndrome testing, modeling cumulative costs and QALYs for the individual tested and first/second/third-degree relatives. For tumor profiling, not restricting to treatment uptake or response and including QALYs and costs of downstream outcomes. For screening, modeling lifetime costs and QALYs and considering consequences of low penetrance and GS/ES reanalysis. CONCLUSION: Our frameworks can guide the design of model-based CEAs and ultimately foster robust evidence for the economic value of GS/ES.

Risk-reducing surgery in unaffected individuals receiving cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing enables primary cancer prevention, including through prophylactic surgery. We examined risk-reducing surgeries in unaffected individuals tested for hereditary cancer susceptibly between 2010 and 2018 in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health system. METHODS: We used an internal genetic testing database to create a cohort of individuals who received tests including one or more high-penetrance hereditary cancer susceptibility gene. We then identified, after testing, bilateral mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and total hysterectomy procedures in electronic health record and claims data through 2019. We describe surgery utilization by genetic test results and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: The cohort included 1020 individuals, 16% with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in one or more of the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, APC, MUTYH, ATM, MSH2, PALB2, BRIP1, MLH1, MSH6, EPCAM, FLCN, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53. Among individuals with P/LP variants making them candidates for mastectomy, BSO, or hysterectomy per NCCN guidelines, 34% (33/97), 24% (23/94), and 8% (1/12), respectively, underwent surgery during follow-up. Fifty-three percent (18/37) of hysterectomies were among APC, BRCA1, and BRCA2 P/LP variant heterozygotes, typically concurrent with BSO. Three individuals with variants of uncertain significance (only) and 22 with negative results had prophylactic surgery after genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of risk-reducing surgery following usual care genetic testing appears to be lower than in studies that actively recruit high-risk patients and provide testing and follow-up care in specialized settings. Factors in addition to genetic test results and NCCN guidelines motivate prophylactic surgery use and deserve further study.

Prescribing Alzheimer's Disease treatments by provider type and geographic region: a comparison among physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

BACKGROUND: The estimated increase in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) caseload may present a logistical challenge to the US healthcare system. While nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are increasingly delivering primary care to patients with chronic diseases, the nature of their prescribing of AD medications is largely unknown. The primary objective of this study was to compare the prescribing of AD medications across provider types (physician, NP, and PA) and geographic regions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using IBM MarketScan® commercial and Medicare supplemental claims to examine unique AD prescriptions prescribed between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Parallel analysis of prescriptions for another geriatric condition, osteoporosis (OP), was also conducted for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 103,067 AD prescriptions and 131,773 OP prescriptions were included in analyses. Physicians prescribed most AD prescriptions (95.65%), followed by NPs (3.37%) and PAs (0.98%). Small differences were identified among individual AD medications prescribed by physicians compared to NP/PAs. NPs/PAs prescribed a significantly higher proportion of AD prescriptions in rural as compared to urban areas (z = 0.023, 95%CI [0.018, 0.028]). CONCLUSION: Minimal variation exists in AD prescribing among physicians, NPs, and PAs, but NPs/PAs prescribe more AD prescriptions in rural areas. NPs/PAs, especially in rural areas, may play critical roles in alleviating projected workforce constraints. Further research assessing AD care, health outcomes, and costs by provider type and region is necessary to better guide healthcare workforce planning for AD care.

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

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

Health care utilization and expenditures of parents of children with and without hemophilia A.

BACKGROUND: Caring for children with hemophilia A (HA) impacts many aspects of parents' lives. How this translates to caregivers' utilization of health services is unknown, and its elicitation can inform future evaluations of interventions that address caregiver burden for HA. OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of caring for children with HA on parents' utilization of nonmental and mental health services by comparing 1-year costs and number of claims with parents of children without HA. METHODS: Retrospective matched cohort study using MarketScan commercial medical and pharmacy claims from 2011 to 2019. Children with HA were male sex, aged younger than 18 years, dependent policyholders, and had at least 1 HA-related medical claim from 2011 to 2018 and either an HA-related procedure or drug claim. Parents of children with HA (PCH) were primary or secondary policyholders, shared the same family ID as children with HA, and were continuously enrolled for 1-year post-index. PCH were matched (1:2) with parents of children without HA on age, sex, beneficiary type, child's age, number of children, index month and year, health plan type, employment status, and region. Primary outcomes were nonmental and mental health care costs (2020 US dollars). Secondary outcomes were number of nonmental health outpatient claims and utilization of mental health outpatient or drug claim. Subgroup analyses excluding parents with HA were also conducted. Productivity loss was also explored. Outcomes were compared using 2-sided, paired t-tests, and McNemar test. RESULTS: 1,068 PCH met inclusion criteria and were matched to 2,122 control parents. Mean 1-year cost for PCH was higher for nonmental health (mean difference $1,826 [95% CI = -1,000 to 4,652; P = 0.20]) and similar for mental health services (mean difference $14 [95% CI = -77 to 105; P = 0.76]). When parents with HA were excluded in the subgroup analyses, mental health cost was significantly higher for PCH (mean difference $676 [95% CI = 399 to 953; P < 0.001]). PCH had more nonmental health outpatient claims compared with parents of children without HA (mean difference 1.9 [95% CI = -1.1 to 4.9; P = 0.21]) and were 1.2 times (95% CI = 0.99 to 1.45; P = 0.07) more likely to have a mental health outpatient or drug claim. CONCLUSIONS: PCH had moderately higher health care costs and utilization compared with parents of children without HA; however, these results were not statistically significant. Future studies to better characterize HA disease severity and assess its impact on caregiver burden or to expand caregivers to spouses of adult patients with HA may be warranted. Limitations include inability to ascertain severity of HA in children and the use of claims data to capture complex effects on health care utilization. DISCLOSURES: Dr. Kim's postdoctoral fellowship is supported by Genentech, Inc. Dr. Raimundo is an employee of Genentech, Inc.

Assessing the Economic Value of Clinical Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) is a novel technology, and few economic evaluations have focused on it to date. Before its wider implementation, it is important to highlight the aspects of AI that challenge traditional health technology assessment methods. METHODS: We used an existing broad value framework to assess potential ways AI can provide good value for money. We also developed a rubric of how economic evaluations of AI should vary depending on the case of its use. RESULTS: We found that the measurement of core elements of value-health outcomes and cost-are complicated by AI because its generalizability across different populations is often unclear and because its use may necessitate reconfigured clinical processes. Clinicians' productivity may improve when AI is used. If poorly implemented though, AI may also cause clinicians' workload to increase. Some AI has been found to exacerbate health disparities. Nevertheless, AI may promote equity by expanding access to medical care and, when properly trained, providing unbiased diagnoses and prognoses. The approach to assessment of AI should vary based on its use case: AI that creates new clinical possibilities can improve outcomes, but regulation and evidence collection may be difficult; AI that extends clinical expertise can reduce disparities and lower costs but may result in overuse; and AI that automates clinicians' work can improve productivity but may reduce skills. CONCLUSIONS: The potential uses of clinical AI create challenges for health technology assessment methods originally developed for pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Health economists should be prepared to examine data collection and methods used to train AI, as these may impact its future value.

A Framework for Using Real-World Data and Health Outcomes Modeling to Evaluate Machine Learning-Based Risk Prediction Models.

OBJECTIVES: We propose a framework of health outcomes modeling with dynamic decision making and real-world data (RWD) to evaluate the potential utility of novel risk prediction models in clinical practice. Lung transplant (LTx) referral decisions in cystic fibrosis offer a complex case study. METHODS: We used longitudinal RWD for a cohort of adults (n = 4247) from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry to compare outcomes of an LTx referral policy based on machine learning (ML) mortality risk predictions to referral based on (1) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) alone and (2) heterogenous usual care (UC). We then developed a patient-level simulation model to project number of patients referred for LTx and 5-year survival, accounting for transplant availability, organ allocation policy, and heterogenous treatment effects. RESULTS: Only 12% of patients (95% confidence interval 11%-13%) were referred for LTx over 5 years under UC, compared with 19% (18%-20%) under FEV1 and 20% (19%-22%) under ML. Of 309 patients who died before LTx referral under UC, 31% (27%-36%) would have been referred under FEV1 and 40% (35%-45%) would have been referred under ML. Given a fixed supply of organs, differences in referral time did not lead to significant differences in transplants, pretransplant or post-transplant deaths, or overall survival in 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Health outcomes modeling with RWD may help to identify novel ML risk prediction models with high potential real-world clinical utility and rule out further investment in models that are unlikely to offer meaningful real-world benefits.