Search

More than 16 million Americans living with cognitive impairment warrant a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of this disorder. The recent availability of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is expected to significantly drive demand for such diagnostic testing. Accurate, accessible, and affordable methods are needed. Blood biomarkers (BBMs) offer advantages over usual care amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in these regards. This study used a budget impact model to assess the economic utility of the PrecivityAD® blood test, a clinically validated BBM test for the evaluation of brain amyloid, a pathological hallmark of AD. The model compared 2 scenarios: (1) baseline testing involving usual care practice, and (2) early use of a BBM test before usual care CSF and PET biomarker use. At a modest 40% adoption rate, the BBM test scenario had comparable sensitivity and specificity to the usual care scenario and showed net savings in the diagnostic work-up of $3.57 million or $0.30 per member per month in a 1 million member population, translating to over $1B when extrapolated to the US population as a whole and representing a 11.4% cost reduction. Savings were driven by reductions in the frequency and need for CSF and PET testing. Additionally, BBM testing was associated with a cost savings of $643 per AD case identified. Use of the PrecivityAD blood test in the clinical care pathway may prevent unnecessary testing, provide cost savings, and reduce the burden on both patients and health plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease of unknown origin. Recently, nintedanib and pirfenidone demonstrated efficacy in slowing disease progression and were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Although numerous treatments have been evaluated in IPF, none have shown significant decreases in mortality. The objective of this study was to identify all pharmacologic treatments evaluated for IPF and analyze their efficacy via Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise indirect treatment comparisons. This review did not evaluate the effect of steroid therapy.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published on or before August 2014. Studies were required to contain a randomized evaluation of nonsteroidal drug therapy for treatment of IPF and be published in English. Key outcomes of interest for this analysis were pulmonary function as measured by FVC as well as all-cause and respiratory-specific death. All outcomes were analyzed via a Bayesian framework.Results: Our review identified 30 eligible studies that evaluated 16 unique treatments. Under both the fixed-effect and random-effect models for respiratory-specific mortality, no treatments performed better than placebo. For all-cause mortality, pirfenidone and nintedanib had effects approaching significance with credible intervals slightly crossing the null under a fixed-effect model. Notably, for respiratory-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and decline in percent predicted FVC, nintedanib and pirfenidone were virtually indistinguishable and no clear advantage was detected.Conclusions: Although two treatments have been approved for IPF on the basis of reduced decline in pulmonary function, neither one has a clear advantage on mortality outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, commonly known as statins, are some of the most widely prescribed medications worldwide and have been shown to be effective at lowering cholesterol in numerous long-term prospective trials, yet there are significant limitations to their use. First, patients receiving statin therapy have relatively low levels of medication adherence compared with other drug classes. Next, numerous statin formulations are available, each with its own unique safety and efficacy profile, and it may be unclear to prescribers which treatment is optimal for their patients. Finally, statins have class-wide side effects of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis that have resulted in a product recall and dosage limitations. Recent evidence suggests that two genomic markers, KIF6 and SLCO1B1, may inform the therapy choice of patients initiating statins. Given the prevalence of statin usage, their potential health advantages and their overall cost to the healthcare system, there could be significant clinical benefit from creating personalized treatment regimens. Ultimately, if this approach is effective it may encourage higher OPEN ACCESS adoption of generic statins when appropriate, promote adherence, lower rates of myopathy, and overall achieve higher value cardiovascular care. This paper will review the evidence for personalized prescribing of statins via KIF6 and SLCO1B1 and consider some of the implications for testing these markers as part of routine clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "At-Home versus In-Clinic INR monitoring: a cost-utility analysis from The Home INR Study (THINRS)" by C. S. Phibbs and colleagues.