Search

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.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.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).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.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of patient experience (PEx) in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important; however, no harmonized approach exists to help manufacturers or decision makers ensure PEx considerations are fair, consistent, and thorough within global HTA frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a proposal for including PEx in the HTA frameworks of health technologies. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) on existing value frameworks (VFs) was conducted to capture how PEx-related value judgment is currently considered. Guided by the results of the SLR, a research group including HTA experts and patient representatives used an iterative process to develop potential value domains to capture PEx, in accordance with international guidelines. Subsequently, a panel of international payer experts was used to challenge the proposed PEx domains and provide recommendations for implementation. RESULTS: The SLR found 61 VFs and multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) that considered PEx; however, PEx-related value elements were often referred to superficially, without clear definitions. Five potential PEx domains, with proposed measures for each, were developed and refined using expert feedback: (1) responsiveness to patient's individual needs, (2) improved health literacy and empowerment, (3) patient and caregiver reported outcomes, (4) household's financial burden, and (5) improved access for vulnerable patient populations. A flexible approach for framework implementation was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed PEx domains could be implemented at multiple levels of healthcare decision making to formalize consideration of PEx in the assessment of value, either through the extension of existing VFs or to create new PEx-focused VFs and more holistic decision making tools. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded and sponsored by UCB Pharma. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Charokopou, Mountain, and Szegvari are employed by UCB Pharma. Inotai, Jakab, and Kalo are employed by Syreon Research Institute, which received funding from UCB Pharma for this research. Brixner has received fees from AbbVie, Elevar, Millcreek Outcomes Group, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Xcenda. Campbell has received grants and contracts from the PhRMA Foundation and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. During a sabbatical leave, Campbell collaborated with Syreon Research Institute on research projects that included funding from UCB Pharma. Hawkins has received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. Kristensen has received speakers bureau fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and consultancy fees from UCB Pharma.

Background Traditionally, the economic value of health technologies is assessed with cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) analyses. However, the evaluation of rare disease therapies often considers novel value criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a promising tool in the assessment of value criteria that typically cannot be captured with traditional approaches. Objectives The objective of this research was to investigate the criteria and scoring functions applied in value frameworks and MCDA tools relevant to the evaluation of rare disease therapies. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the domains and measurement of commonly referenced novel value criteria. Methods A systematic literature review was performed covering the period from 2013 to 2019. MCDA or value framework articles and structured review papers on orphan-drug-specific MCDA articles were reviewed. Information sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and 26 other gray literature sources. A descriptive review of identified criteria and scoring functions was performed, with special focus on “novel” value criteria that are traditionally not considered in CE or BI analyses. Results In total, 15 relevant value frameworks and MCDA tools were identified. These studies included a large number (n = 56) of individual value criteria. The most commonly included novel criteria were unmet medical need, severity of disease, and reduction in uncertainty. The identified scoring functions (measurement methods) for novel criteria were highly heterogeneous and tailored. Standardized scoring functions were not observed. Additionally, the studies did not provide their rationale for choosing a specific scoring function for a criterion. Conclusions MCDA is a promising tool to include novel value criteria into the health technology assessment of therapies for rare diseases. To support the development of a transparent and justified evaluation process, scoring functions should be further investigated. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00271-w.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan ...

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England St...

ObjectiveTo examine whether early follow-up with primary care or neurology is associated with lower all-cause readmissions within 30 and 90 days after acute ischemic stroke admission.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who were discharged home after acute ischemic stroke, identified by ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, using PharMetrics, a nationally representative claims database of insured Americans from 2009 to 2015. The primary predictor was outpatient primary care or neurology follow-up within 30 and 90 days of discharge, and the primary outcome was all-cause 30- and 90-day readmissions. Multivariable Cox models were used with primary care and neurology visits specified as time-dependent covariates, with adjustment for patient demographics, comorbid conditions, and stroke severity measures.ResultsThe cohort included 14,630 patients. Readmissions within 30 days occurred in 7.3% of patients, and readmissions within 90 days occurred in 13.7% of patients. By 30 days, 59.3% had a primary care visit, and 24.4% had a neurology visit. Primary care follow-up was associated with reduced 30-day readmissions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–0.98). Primary care follow-up before 90 days did not reach significance (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83–1.03). Neurology follow-up was not associated with reduced readmissions within 30 or 90 days (HR 1.05, 95% CI; HR 1.00, 95% CI, respectively).ConclusionEarly outpatient follow-up with primary care is associated with a reduction in 30-day hospital readmissions. Early outpatient follow-up may represent an important opportunity for intervention after acute stroke admissions.

Background and ObjectivesAducanumab 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsUsing 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.ConclusionPatients 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.

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.

Key Points Question What is the most effective HIV screening strategy for emergency departments (EDs)? Findings This randomized clinical trial included 76 561 ED patient visits allocated to either nontargeted HIV screening or 1 of 2 forms of targeted HIV screening. A total of 14 405 HIV tests were completed resulting in 24 (0.17%) individuals identified with newly diagnosed HIV, with no difference in rates of diagnosis among the 3 strategies. Meaning Targeted and nontargeted HIV screening yielded comparable numbers of new HIV diagnoses in the ED., This randomized clinical trial examines 76 561 emergency department patient visits to compare effectiveness of targeted and nontargeted HIV screening strategies for finding new diagnoses., Importance The National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown. Objective To compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021. Interventions Consecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays. Main Outcomes and Measures New HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs). Results A total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, −0.01%; 95% CI, −0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, −0.01%; 95% CI, −0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47). Conclusions and Relevance Targeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949

Transparency in decision modeling remains a topic of rigorous debate among healthcare stakeholders, given tensions between the potential benefits of external access during model development and the need to protect intellectual property and reward research investments. Strategies to increase decision model transparency by allowing direct external access to a model's structure, source code, and data can take on many forms but are bounded between the status quo and free publicly available open-source models. Importantly, some level of transparency already exists in terms of methods and other technical specifications for published models. The purpose of this paper is to delineate pertinent issues surrounding efforts to increase transparency via direct access to models and to offer key considerations for the field of health economics and outcomes research moving forward from a US academic perspective. Given the current environment faced by modelers in academic settings, expected benefits and challenges of allowing direct model access are discussed. The paper also includes suggestions for pathways toward increased transparency as well as an illustrative real-world example used in work with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to support assessments of the value of new health interventions. Potential options to increase transparency via direct model access during model development include adequate funding to support the additional effort required and mechanisms to maintain security of the underlying intellectual property. Ultimately, the appropriate level of transparency requires balancing the interests of several groups but, if done right, has the potential to improve models and better integrate them into healthcare priority setting and decision making in the US context.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California, and California Health Care Foundation to the Institute for Clinical and Eco...

Aim: Criteria weighting is a key element of multicriteria decision analysis that is becoming extensively used in healthcare decision-making. In our narrative review we describe the advantages and disadvantages of various weighting methods. Methods: An assessment of the eight identified primary criteria weighting methods was compiled on domains including their resource requirements, and potential for bias. Results: In general, we found more complex methods to have less potential for bias; however, resource intensity and general participant burden is greater for these methods. Conclusion: The selection of the most appropriate method depends on the decision-making context. The simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART) method combined with swing-weighting technique and the analytic hierarchy process methods may be the most feasible approaches for low- and middle-income countries.

ObjectiveTo develop a valid algorithm for identifying multiple sclerosis (MS) cases in administrative health claims (AHC) datasets.MethodsWe used 4 AHC datasets from the Veterans Administration (VA), Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), Manitoba (Canada), and Saskatchewan (Canada). In the VA, KPSC, and Manitoba, we tested the performance of candidate algorithms based on inpatient, outpatient, and disease-modifying therapy (DMT) claims compared to medical records review using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and interrater reliability (Youden J statistic) both overall and stratified by sex and age. In Saskatchewan, we tested the algorithms in a cohort randomly selected from the general population.ResultsThe preferred algorithm required ≥3 MS-related claims from any combination of inpatient, outpatient, or DMT claims within a 1-year time period; a 2-year time period provided little gain in performance. Algorithms including DMT claims performed better than those that did not. Sensitivity (86.6%–96.0%), specificity (66.7%–99.0%), positive predictive value (95.4%–99.0%), and interrater reliability (Youden J = 0.60–0.92) were generally stable across datasets and across strata. Some variation in performance in the stratified analyses was observed but largely reflected changes in the composition of the strata. In Saskatchewan, the preferred algorithm had a sensitivity of 96%, specificity of 99%, positive predictive value of 99%, and negative predictive value of 96%.ConclusionsThe performance of each algorithm was remarkably consistent across datasets. The preferred algorithm required ≥3 MS-related claims from any combination of inpatient, outpatient, or DMT use within 1 year. We recommend this algorithm as the standard AHC case definition for MS.

Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with a societal burden greater than $39 billion annually. Novel treatments, known as targeted immune modulators (TIMs), are expensive but effective, producing improvements in response rates compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Sarilumab, a TIM approved in 2017, shows superior improvements compared with cDMARDs and produced significantly greater likelihood of achieving response and improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index than adalimumab monotherapy. Although sarilumab monotherapy has shown improvements over cDMARDs and the TIM market leader adalimumab, treatment with sarilumab is costly, with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $39,000.To estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of starting treatment with sarilumab monotherapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs.A sequential treatment cohort model followed a hypothetical cohort from initiation of sarilumab monotherapy until death. The model allowed patients to switch therapies up to 3 times due to effectiveness or adverse events. The first switch was to a TIM within the same treatment category; the second switch was to a TIM within a different treatment category; and the third switch was to a cDMARD. Sarilumab monotherapy was compared with a cDMARD (methotrexate) and the TIM market leader (adalimumab monotherapy). Key risk and benefit evidence came from clinical studies and network meta-analyses of data on radiographic progression and response. We used a lifetime time horizon and the U.S. health sector payer perspective assuming therapy net pricing. We also incorporated loss of productivity to reflect a restricted societal perspective.Over a lifetime time horizon, a treatment pathway starting with sarilumab resulted in 17.16 life-years and 13.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment pathways starting with the cDMARD resulted in 16.54 life-years and 11.77 QALYs; treatment pathways starting with adalimumab resulted in 17.05 life-years and 13.35 QALYs. Total costs for sarilumab ($492,000 for payer perspective, $634,000 for societal perspective) were less than total costs for adalimumab ($536,000 for payer perspective, $689,000 for societal perspective) but higher than total costs for the cDMARD ($63,000 for payer perspective, $272,000 for societal perspective). When compared with cDMARD therapy, sarilumab resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $227,000 per QALY gained from the payer perspective and $191,000 per QALYs gained from the societal perspective. When compared with adalimumab, sarilumab was dominant from both perspectives.Sarilumab resulted in better health outcomes than conventional therapy alone. However, its additional cost with assumed class-level net prices led to cost-effectiveness estimates above commonly cited thresholds. When compared with the market leader, sarilumab achieved favorable value. This evaluation informs stakeholders of the value of sarilumab and its alternatives to promote high value practices in health care.Funding for this research was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Kumar, Synnott, and Agboola are employees of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. The organization's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Omeda Rx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, JohnsonJohnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Humana. This work is an extension of an analysis presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council on March 24, 2017, where the authors received public feedback on the analysis, results, and effect of a value assessment for targeted immune modulators. At the time of presentation, sarilumab was still an investigational product; therefore, a price was not known, so cost-effectiveness estimates were not generated. Since the presentation of that material, additional evidence for sarilumab has become available. The additional evidence has been incorporated into this analysis to present cost-effectiveness estimates for sarilumab.

Purpose Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using Immunization Information Systems has been effective in increasing childhood immunization rates. Previously, C-R/R using autodialer for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine did not raise rates. We assessed C-R/R for HPV vaccine using other modalities and focused on younger adolescents. Methods We conducted a three-arm pragmatic RCT in randomly sampled primary care practices in Colorado (n = 88) and New York (n = 136), proportionate to where adolescents received care. We randomized, within practices, adolescents aged 11-14 years who had not completed the HPV vaccination series to receive C-R/R using different modalities (Colorado: autodialer, mail, or control; New York: autodialer, text, or control). Up to two reminders were sent in intervention arms for each dose needed between 2/2017 and 12/2018. Results In Colorado, no significant differences were found for series initiation (31.3% control, 31.1% autodial, 31.8% mail), with slight improvement for series completion in the autodialer arm (29.7% control, 31.1% autodialer, p = .04) but not the mail arm (30.9%, p = .06). No significant differences were found in New York for series initiation (24.1% for all arms) or completion (17.1% control, 16.9% autodial, 17.9% text). Adjusted analyses showed higher completion rates for the autodialer arm in Colorado but not for other arms. In Colorado, C-R/R reduced time to series completion by around 2 months. Cost per adolescent was $1.81 for mail; under $.40 for all other modalities. Conclusions C-R/R has less benefit for raising HPV vaccination rates than other studies have noted for childhood immunizations, although it may quicken series completion at little cost.

Introduction: Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) present a serious public health problem. Limited treatment options has led to increased use of colistin and polymyxin. Since 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 4 new beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor (BLBLI) combination antibiotics with activity against CROs. These new antibiotics have been shown to be more effective and less toxic than colistin and polymyxin but are considerably more expensive. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the new BLBLIs versus colistin-based therapy for the treatment of CROs. Methods: A decision-tree microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the new BLBLIs versus colistin-based therapy for the treatment of CROs. Treatment groups differed in risk of mortality and risk of an acute kidney injury (AKI). The relative risk of mortality was determined by creating a meta-analysis comparing new BLBLIs to colistin. Cost inputs included medication costs and the cost to treat an AKI. The primary outcomes include quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model inputs included: clinical outcomes and adverse events (30-day mortality and AKI); cost of treatment and adverse drug events; and health utilities. A 3% discount was applied for outcomes. A lifetime horizon was used from the perspective of the US healthcare system with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000. A sensitivity analysis was done to incorporate uncertainty. Results: The meta-analysis found the treatment with a new BLBLI was associated with a 50% decrease in the relative risk of 30-day mortality compared to colistin (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.88). Treatment with a new BLBLI cost $16 200 and produced 11.5 QALYs, on average. The average colistin based regimen cost $3500 and produced 8.3 QALYs. The new BLBLIs were determined to be cost-effective with an ICER of $3900 per QALY gained. Treatment with a BLBLI remained cost-effective under all uncertainty scenarios tested. Conclusion: New BLBLIs are cost-effective compared to colistin for the treatment of CROs and are associated with improved mortality and fewer AKI events. The use of colistin should be reserved for cases where new BLBLIs are not available or there is documented resistance to these new antibiotics.

Objective Acromegaly is a rare, pituitary hormonal disorder that requires improved awareness worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to quantify the clinical and economic burden of comorbidities for patients with acromegaly and examine the influence of biochemical control on these outcomes. Study design Markov cohort decision analytic model consisting of two states, including alive (with and without comorbidity) and dead. Methods A cohort of patients with acromegaly who had achieved biochemical control, a cohort of patients with acromegaly who had not achieved biochemical control, and a cohort of individuals from the general US population were tracked over a lifetime time horizon. The model tracked the proportion of the alive population that had each comorbidity based on age, sex, presence of acromegaly, and biochemical control status. The proportion of patients with each acromegaly-associated comorbidity were assigned comorbidity-associated costs, disutilities, and increased risk of mortality. Results Compared with the general population, controlled acromegaly resulted in $192,000 additional comorbidity-related costs, 0.7 fewer years of life, 2.9 fewer quality-adjusted life years, and 1.1 more comorbidities across the remaining lifespan. Compared with the general population, uncontrolled acromegaly resulted in $285,000 additional comorbidity-related costs, 0.9 fewer years of life, 4.2 fewer quality-adjusted life years, and 1.6 more comorbidities across the remaining lifespan. Conclusions Achieving biochemical control is associated with improvements in cost, quality of life, and mortality, albeit not to the level of the general population. A multimodal treatment strategy including biochemical control and management of comorbidities is necessary to improve patient outcomes.

Acromegaly is a rare, chronic disorder characterized by hypersecretion of growth hormone (GH) that stimulates the production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). In addition to the physical manifestations, such as acral soft-tissue enlargement and maxillofacial changes, patients may develop a number of comorbidities, often prior to diagnosis. The goal of acromegaly treatment is to achieve biochemical control (normalization of GH and IGF-1 levels), which may resolve or prevent worsening of comorbid conditions. The objective of this study was to quantify the economic burden of comorbidities associated with acromegaly, including diabetes, hypertension, colon cancer, sleep apnea, and hypopituitarism. Comparisons were made between patients with acromegaly and biochemical control, patients with acromegaly without biochemical control, and the general population. Literature was reviewed to identify the prevalence of comorbidities among the groups, as well as the influence of each comorbidity on healthcare costs, quality of life, and mortality. Inputs from the literature were synthesized using a decision-analytic cohort model with a starting age of 55 years old and 55% female and extrapolated over a lifetime. Acromegaly-associated morbidity and mortality were not modeled due to possible double counting between acromegaly and other comorbidities. The average comorbidity count measure (range from 0 to 5) was a sum across all 5 comorbidity prevalence rates for all those living in the cohort per year of survival. Comorbidity prevalence was higher among acromegalic patients vs the general population for all comorbidities. Within acromegaly, uncontrolled disorder was associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea. Lifetime discounted comorbidity costs were ~$121,000, ~$313,000, and ~$406,000 in the general population, acromegaly controlled, and acromegaly uncontrolled populations, respectively. Lifetime discounted life years were 17.6, 16.9, and 16.7 in the general population, acromegaly controlled, and acromegaly uncontrolled populations, respectively. Lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life years were 14.6, 11.7, and 10.4 in in the general population, acromegaly controlled, and acromegaly uncontrolled populations, respectively. Lifetime discounted average comorbidity count was 0.8, 1.9, and 2.4 in each group, respectively. Compared with controlled acromegaly, uncontrolled disorder resulted in $93,000 additional comorbidity-related costs, 1.3 fewer years of perfect health, and 0.5 more comorbidities across the remaining lifespan. This simulation model suggests achieving biochemical control seems to be associated with improvements in cost, quality of life, and mortality. A multimodal treatment strategy including biochemical control and management of comorbidities is necessary to promote optimal patient outcomes.

To measure the association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use and out-of-hospital ventricular arrhythmia among the pediatric and young adult population.Case-control study using US claims data from 2007 to 2018. Cases were subjects with at least 1 event between ages 2 and 24 years. Controls (matched 10:1 on index date, age, sex, and continuous enrollment) had no events during study period. Independent association between current SSRI use (prescription fill with continuous exposure ending on, or after, the index date) and incident out-of-hospital ventricular arrhythmia (hospitalization or emergency room encounter with primary diagnostic code for ventricular arrhythmia) was estimated using multivariable conditional logistic regression. Separate analyses were performed for pediatric (2-17 years of age) vs young adult (18-24 years of age) subjects and between citalopram/escitalopram vs other SSRIs.During the study period, 237 eligible cases were identified with 2370 matched controls. Cases were more likely to have government insurance and have a mental health, cardiac, or other complex chronic condition. Thirteen cases (5%) and 15 controls (1%) had current SSRI exposure. After adjustment for mental health and chronic conditions, there was an increased odds of current SSRI use among cases compared with controls (OR 5.11, 95% CI 1.22-21.37). No difference was observed between pediatric and young adult ages, nor between citalopram/escitalopram and other SSRIs.These findings demonstrate increased odds of out-of-hospital ventricular arrhythmia associated with SSRI use in the pediatric and young adult population, suggesting a need for heightened awareness and ongoing monitoring of this potential adverse effect.

A stepwise therapeutic management is recommended for asthma patients by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Little is known about the recommendations applied in real world settings. This study aims to associate Treatment step with clinical events in patients with mild or severe asthma.A retrospective claims database analysis included adult patients with mild (GINA step 1) or severe asthma (GINA step 4). Maximum Treatment Step was measured within the first and second 90-day period after index date (the first date of asthma diagnosis during the inclusion period). Step-down was defined as a Treatment Step change from a higher to lower step, while Step-up was defined as a Treatment Step change from a lower to higher step. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of asthma-related clinical events, measured at the third 90-day period.A total of 6,354 mild-asthma patients and 5,695 severe-asthma patients were included. In mild-asthma, when compared with No Change in Treatment Step, Step-down was associated with a lower risk of future clinical events [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (95% CI); 0.69-0.94], while Step-up was not associated with a change in clinical events [OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.77-1.27]. In severe-asthma patients, Step-down was not associated with a change in clinical events [OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.81-1.10], while Step-up was associated with a higher risk of future clinical events [OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.29-3.33]. Our findings reassure the appropriateness of stepping-down treatment in mild-asthma patients. Clinicians should closely monitor and/or provide detailed asthma action plans for severe-asthma patients who are stepping-up treatment.

Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act requires drug manufacturers to enter into price agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services. These agreements result in variation in the price paid to acquire a drug by sector, which complicates the price used in cost-effectiveness analyses. We describe the transactions and sectors in a 340B agreement using a multiple sclerosis drug. Cost-effectiveness estimates were calculated for the drug using drug prices from the manufacturer and payer perspective. We found the amount paid to the manufacturer (340B price) was a good value ($118,256 per quality-adjusted life-year); however, from the payer drug cost perspective, good value ($196,683 per quality-adjusted life-year) was not achieved. Given that emerging value frameworks incorporate cost-effectiveness, these price variations may have downstream negative consequences, including inaccurate coverage and reimbursement policy recommendations. Upcoming policy changes to the 340B program should incentivize pricing schemes hinged on transparency and value.

The objective of this study was to describe and quantify the impact of caring for a child with Dravet syndrome (DS) on caregivers.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.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 scored65 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 missed1day 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.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.

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.

Objectives To forecast lifetime outcomes and cost of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with homozygous phe508del mutation from the US payer perspective. Methods A lifetime Markov model was developed from a US payer perspective. The model included five health states: 1) mild lung disease (percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV 1 ] >70%), 2) moderate lung disease (40% ≤ FEV 1 ≤ 70%), 3) severe lung disease (FEV 1 Results Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with additional 2.91 life-years (95% credible interval 2.55–3.56) and additional 2.42 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% credible interval 2.10–2.98). Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with improvements in survival and QALYs equivalent to 27.6% and 20.7%, respectively, for the survival and QALY gaps between CF usual care and their non-CF peers. The incremental lifetime cost was $2,632,249. Conclusions Lumacaftor/ivacaftor increased life-years and QALYs in CF patients with the homozygous phe508del mutation and moved morbidity and mortality closer to that of their non-CF peers but it came with higher cost.

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 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.

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.

Background To mitigate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, intensive care units (ICUs) conduct surveillance through screening patients upon admission followed by adhering to isolation precautions. Two surveillance approaches commonly implemented are universal preemptive isolation and targeted isolation of only MRSA-positive patients. Methods Decision analysis was used to calculate the total cost of universal preemptive isolation and targeted isolation. The screening test used as part of the surveillance practice was varied to identify which screening test minimized inappropriate and total costs. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the range of total costs resulting from variation in inputs. Results The total cost of the universal preemptive isolation surveillance practice was minimized when a polymerase chain reaction screening test was used ($82.51 per patient). Costs were $207.60 more per patient when a conventional culture was used due to the longer turnaround time and thus higher isolation costs. The total cost of the targeted isolation surveillance practice was minimized when chromogenic agar 24-hour testing was used ($8.54 per patient). Costs were $22.41 more per patient when polymerase chain reaction was used. Conclusions For ICUs that preemptively isolate all patients, the use of a polymerase chain reaction screening test is recommended because it can minimize total costs by reducing inappropriate isolation costs. For ICUs that only isolate MRSA-positive patients, the use of chromogenic agar 24-hour testing is recommended to minimize total costs.

Objective Despite relatively high national vaccination coverage for measles, geographic vaccination variation exists resulting in clusters of susceptibility. A portion of this geographic variation can be explained by differences in state policies related to nonmedical vaccine exemptions. The objective of this analysis was to determine the magnitude, likelihood, and cost of a measles outbreak under different nonmedical vaccine exemption policies. Methods An agent-based transmission model simulated the likelihood and magnitude of a measles outbreak under different nonmedical vaccine exemption policies, previously categorized as easy, medium, or difficult. The model accounted for measles herd immunity, infectiousness of the pathogen, vaccine efficacy, duration of incubation and communicable periods, acquired natural immunity, and the rate of recovery. Public health contact tracing was also modeled. Model outcomes, including the number of secondary cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, were monetized to determine the economic burden of the simulated outbreaks. Results A state with easy nonmedical vaccine exemption policies is 140% and 190% more likely to experience a measles outbreak compared with states with medium or difficult policies, respectively. The magnitude of these outbreaks can be reduced by half by strengthening exemption policies. These declines are associated with significant cost reductions to public health, the health care system, and the individual. Conclusions Strengthening nonmedical vaccine exemption policies is 1 mechanism to increase vaccination coverage to reduce the health and economic effect of a measles outbreak. States exploring options for decreasing their vulnerability to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases should consider more stringent requirements for nonmedical vaccine exemptions.

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 .

Objective To determine the costs and reimbursement associated with running a vaccine program in 5 obstetrics/gynecology practices in Colorado that had participated in a 3-year randomized, controlled trial focused on increasing vaccination in this setting. Materials and Methods This was a secondary analysis on costs from 5 clinics participating in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention to improve vaccination rates in outpatient obstetrics/gynecology clinics in central Colorado. The intervention included designation of an immunization champion within the practice, purchasing recommended vaccines for the practice, guidance on storage and management, implementing practices for routine identification of eligible patients for vaccination using the medical record, implementation of standing orders for vaccination, and vaccine administration to patients. Data on costs were gathered from office invoices, claims data, surveys and in-person observations during the course of the trial. These data incorporated supply and personnel costs for administering vaccines to individual patients that were derived from a combination of time–motion studies of staff and provider clinical activity, and practice reports, as well as costs related to maintaining the vaccination program at the practice level, which were derived from practice reports and invoices. Cost data for personnel time during visits in which vaccination was assessed and/or discussed, but no vaccine was given to the patient were also included in the main analysis. Data on practice revenue were derived from practice reimbursement records. All costs were described in 2014 dollars. The primary analysis was the proportion of costs for the program that were reimbursed, aggregated over all years of the study and combining all vaccines and practices, separated by obstetrics vs gynecology patients. Results Collectively the 5 clinics served >40,000 patient during the study period and served a population that was 16% Medicaid. Over the 3-year observation period, there were 6573 vaccination claims made collectively by the practices (4657 for obstetric patients, 1916 for gynecology patients). The most expensive component of the program was the material costs of the vaccines themselves, which ranged from a low of $9.67 for influenza vaccines, to a high of $141.40 for human papillomavirus vaccine. Staff costs for assessing and delivering vaccines during patient visits were minimal ($0.09–$1.24 per patient visit depending on the practice and whether an obstetrics or gynecology visit was being assessed) compared with staff costs for maintaining the program at a practice level (ie, assessing inventory, ordering and stocking vaccines; $0.89–$105.89 per vaccine dose given). When assessing all costs compared with all reimbursement, we found that vaccines for obstetrics patients were reimbursed at 159% of the costs over the study period, and for gynecology patients at 97% of the costs. Overall, the vaccination program was financially favorable across the practices, averaging 125% reimbursement of costs across the three study years. Conclusion Providing routine vaccines to patients in the ambulatory obstetrics/gynecology setting is generally not financially prohibitive for practices, and may even be financially beneficial, though there is variability between practices that can affect the overall reimbursement margin.

Objective Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) by health departments using Immunization Information Systems (IIS) is more effective and cost-effective than practice-based approaches for increasing childhood vaccines but has not been studied for influenza vaccination. We assessed effectiveness and cost of C-R/R for increasing childhood influenza vaccination compared with usual care. Methods Within Colorado (CO) and New York (NY), random samples of primary care practices (pediatric, family medicine, health center) were selected proportionate to where children are served– 65 practices (N=54,353 children) in CO; 101 practices (N=65,777) in NY. We conducted 4-arm RCTs per state (1, 2 or 3 autodial reminders versus usual care), with randomization at the patient level within practices from 10/2016-1/2017. Results In CO, the maximum absolute difference in receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine was 1.7% between the 2 R/R group and control [adjusted risk ratio (ARR) of 1.06 (1.01, 1.10)]; other R/R arms did not differ significantly. In NY, ARRs for the study arms versus control varied from 1.05 (1.01, 1.10) for 3 R/R to 1.06 (1.01, 1.11) for 1-2 R/R groups and maximum absolute increase in vaccination was 0.6%. In time-to-event analyses, study arm was a significant predictor of vaccination in CO (p=.001) but not in NY. Costs/child randomized to one message were $.17 in CO and $.23 in NY. Conclusions C-R/R for influenza vaccine using autodial had low-level effects on increasing influenza rates in 2 states. Given the feasibility and low cost of C-R/R in previous trials, its utility for influenza should be re-examined using different modalities.

Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California, and California Health Care Foundation 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, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Cambia Health Solutions, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, JohnsonJohnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Health Care Service Corporation, Editas, Alnylam, Regeneron, Mallinkrodt, Biogen, HealthPartners, and Novartis. Synnott, Kumar, Adair, Rind, and Pearson are employees of ICER, which provided grants to the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Colorado to perform work for these analyses. Tice and Walsh are employed by the University of California, San Francisco, and Campbell and Whittington are employed by the University of Colorado.

Introduction A Task Force was commissioned jointly by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) to develop a quality assessment tool for real-life observational research to identify high-quality real-life asthma studies that could be considered within future guideline development. Methods The resulting REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was achieved through an extensive analysis of existing initiatives in this area. The first version was piloted among 9 raters across 6 articles; the revised, interim, version underwent extensive testing by 22 reviewers from the EAACI membership and REG collaborator group, leading to further revisions and tool finalisation. RELEVANT was validated through an analysis of real-life effectiveness studies identified via systematic review of Medline and Embase databases and relating to topics for which real-life studies may offer valuable evidence complementary to that from randomised controlled trials. The topics were selected through a vote among Task Force members and related to the influence of adherence, smoking, inhaler device and particle size on asthma treatment effectiveness. Results Although highlighting a general lack of high-quality real-life effectiveness observational research on these clinically important topics, the analysis provided insights into how identified observational studies might inform asthma guidelines developers and clinicians. Overall, RELEVANT appeared reliable and easy to use by expert reviewers. Conclusions Using such quality appraisal tools is mandatory to assess whether specific observational real-life effectiveness studies can be used to inform guideline development and/or decision-making in clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13601-019-0255-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development. Methods The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted—the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named “primary sub-items”. Results Following the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties. Conclusions RELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13601-019-0256-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Incidence of cardiovascular disease in young adults is unabated. Increased prevalence of self‐reported atherosclerotic risk factors may be driving this trend. The goal of this study was to examine whether the prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors in young adults is increasing over time using both self‐report and standard clinical criteria. Methods and Results Data from young adults, aged 20 to 45 years, in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999/2000 to 2013/2014 were analyzed. Risk factor prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia was measured using clinical criteria and self‐report. Smoking was based on self‐report only, and obesity was based clinically on body mass index and waist to height ratio. Prevalence by survey was adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity. By clinical criteria, adjusted prevalence of any 3 risk factors (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia) declined slightly from 21.8% to 18.9% ( P for trend=0.05). However, by self‐report, the adjusted prevalence of any 3 risk factors increased from 17.8% to 26.5% ( P P =0.32) but increased by self‐report ( P P =0.35 and P =0.29, respectively). Hyperlipidemia, by clinical criteria, declined over time ( P P P P P Conclusions The perception that young adult risk factors are increasing is consistent with increasing self‐reported risk factors. However, evidence does not suggest that clinical risk factor prevalence overall has increased in young adults.

The rapid development of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies for multiple types of cancer has transformed the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term outlook for many patients with advanced cancer. Responding to ongoing efforts to generate value assessments for novel therapies, multiple stakeholders have been considering the question of “What makes I-O transformative?” Evaluating the distinct features and attributes of these therapies, and better characterizing how patients experience them, will inform such assessments. This paper defines ways in which treatment with I-O is different from other therapies. It also proposes key aspects and attributes of I-O therapies that should be considered in any assessment of their value and seeks to address evidence gaps in existing value frameworks given the unique properties of patient outcomes with I-O therapy. The paper concludes with a “data needs catalogue” (DNC) predicated on the belief that multiple key, unique elements that are necessary to fully characterize the value of I-O therapies are not routinely or robustly measured in current clinical practice or reimbursement databases and are infrequently captured in existing research studies. A better characterization of the benefit of I-O treatment will allow a more thorough assessment of its benefits and provide a template for the design and prioritization of future clinical trials and a roadmap for healthcare insurers to optimize coverage for patients with cancers eligible for I-O therapy.

To test the association of clinical evidence type, efficacy-based or effectiveness-based ("E"), versus whether or not asthma interventions' cost-effectiveness findings are favorable.We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.