Search

Gene therapies delivered through a single administration have revolutionized treatment possibilities for many patients living with serious or fatal conditions such as spinal muscular atrophy, hemophilia and sickle cell disease. However, shadowing the excitement about the transformational potential of many gene therapies has been widespread concern about the combination of uncertainty in the durability of their benefits over the long term and the short-term financial shock of high prices. As the healthcare payment ecosystem prepares for the growing number of gene therapies entering the market, three key interconnected challenges must be addressed: determining a fair price, managing clinical uncertainty and managing short-term budget impacts. This paper identifies specific policy reforms and market-based tools to help the US health system address these challenges to achieve more equitable and affordable access for patients to the growing number of gene therapies expected to be approved in the coming years.

This viewpoint discusses cost-effectiveness estimates for EtranaDez, a gene therapy for hemophilia B, using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) framework for single and short-term therapies (SSTs). EtranaDez offers long-term benefits from a single administration, in contrast to the high costs and frequent dosing required by current factor IX prophylaxis. However, the projected gains in health from EtranaDez are small relative to the cost implications of the therapy, and consequently, how the cost offsets associated with EtranaDez are counted has a substantial impact on assessing its cost-effectiveness. Strategies for assessing cost offsets used in the ICER SST framework include a 50/50 cost-sharing model between the health care system and the manufacturer and a cap of $150,000 annually on health care cost offsets. Results from the standard full cost-offset analysis as reported by ICER depicted EtranaDez as a dominant therapy with substantial cost savings compared with factor IX prophylaxis. However, while considering the ICER SST framework, particularly the $150,000 annual cap scenario, the cost-effectiveness was significantly reduced. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied notably between these scenarios, challenging the conventional perception of value of gene therapy in health care. These cost-sharing scenarios highlight the potential of the ICER SST framework to help curtail inefficient health care spending. In cases in which the cost of existing treatment is exceedingly high, the application of such frameworks would improve efficiency in resource allocation, fostering a balance between incentives for innovation and economic sustainability in managed care systems.

Digital health technologies (DHTs) are a broad and rapidly innovating class of interventions with distinctive pathways for development, regulatory approval, uptake and reimbursement. Given the unique nature of DHTs, existing value assessment frameworks and evidence standards for health technologies such as drugs and devices are not directly applicable. The value assessment framework presented here describes a conceptual model and associated methods to guide assessments of DHTs. The framework seeks to accomplish two goals: to set evidence standards that guide technology developers to generate robust evidence on their products; and to provide reviews that help organizations adopt high-impact DHTs with the strongest evidence for delivering improved clinical outcomes and cost savings. This assessment framework will serve as the roadmap for future evaluations of DHTs by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI). We believe that all stakeholders will benefit from comprehensive and explicit standards of evidence on the different dimensions necessary to understand the value of DHTs.

DISCLOSURES: Drs. Nikitin, McKenna, Rind, Nhan, and Pearson report grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, during the conduct of the study; other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sunlife, outside the submitted work.

New Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) analysis evaluates potential risks and advantages of reforms to current policies related to white bagging, brown bagging, and site of service policies that aim to address provider markup in the commercial insurance market.

Objectives: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents., Methods: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates., Results: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes., Conclusion: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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

Objectives: Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations., Methods: We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results., Results: Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

DISCLOSURES: Dr Tice and Mr Sarker received ICER grants during the conduct of the study. Dr Moradi, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Dr Faghim, Dr Agboola, Dr Rind, and Dr Pearson reports grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from Aetna, other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from Cambia Health Services, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Health Partners, other from Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from Spark Therapeutics, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of drug price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses., Methods: We evaluated scenarios involving typical US drug price increases during the exclusivity period and price decreases after the loss of exclusivity (LOE). Worked examples are presented using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessments of tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma and targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis., Results: Tezepelumab case: yearly 2% price increases during the period of exclusivity and a post-LOE price decrease of 25% yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained that increased over the base case from $430 300 to $444 600 (+3.2%). Yearly 2% price increases followed by a steeper post-LOE price reduction of 40% resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $401 400 (6.8% reduction vs the base case). Rheumatoid arthritis case: incorporating post-LOE price reductions for etanercept (intervention) and adalimumab (comparator) ranging from 25% to 40% yielded an incremental cost per QALY of $121 000 and $122 300, respectively (< 3% increase from the base case of $119 200/QALY). Including a 2% yearly price increase during the projected exclusivity periods of both intervention and comparator increased the cost per QALY gained by > 60%., Conclusion: Two biologic treatment cases incorporating price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses had varied impacts on the cost-effectiveness ratio depending on the magnitude of pre-LOE price increase and post-LOE price decrease and whether the LOE also affected the comparator. Yearly price increase magnitude during the period of exclusivity, among other factors, may counterbalance the effects of lower post-LOE intervention prices., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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

Respiratory failure and mortality from COVID-19 result from virus- and inflammation-induced lung tissue damage. The intestinal microbiome and associated metabolites are implicated in immune responses to respiratory viral infections, however their impact on progression of severe COVID-19 remains unclear. We prospectively enrolled 71 patients with COVID-19 associated critical illness, collected fecal specimens within 3 days of medical intensive care unit admission, defined microbiome compositions by shotgun metagenomic sequencing, and quantified microbiota-derived metabolites (NCT #04552834). Of the 71 patients, 39 survived and 32 died. Mortality was associated with increased representation of Proteobacteria in the fecal microbiota and decreased concentrations of fecal secondary bile acids and desaminotyrosine (DAT). A microbiome metabolic profile (MMP) that accounts for fecal secondary bile acids and desaminotyrosine concentrations was independently associated with progression of respiratory failure leading to mechanical ventilation. Our findings demonstrate that fecal microbiota composition and microbiota-derived metabolite concentrations can predict the trajectory of respiratory function and death in patients with severe SARS-Cov-2 infection and suggest that the gut-lung axis plays an important role in the recovery from COVID-19., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Scientific advancements, new US FDA approval pathways and limited competition have contributed to rapid growth in the number of approved rare disease treatments in recent years. While the rising numbers of orphan drug approvals are a sign of success, the rapid growth in approved rare disease treatments has created concerns about the pricing of orphan drugs and their cumulative affordability to the health system. To support efforts to build a policy and practice infrastructure that drives innovation within a platform that is affordable to patients and the health system, this paper provides an analysis of potential risks as well as advantages of reform options related to drug development, pricing and coverage.

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

Objectives: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir, the first novel therapeutic to receive Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and identify key drivers of value to guide future pricing and reimbursement efforts., Methods: A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a US healthcare sector perspective. A lifetime time horizon captured potential long-term costs and outcomes. Model outcomes included discounted total costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Remdesivir was modeled as an addition to standard of care and compared with standard of care alone, including dexamethasone for patients requiring respiratory support. COVID-19 hospitalizations were assumed to be reimbursed through a single payment based on the respiratory support received alongside a remdesivir carveout payment in the base case. Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified key drivers., Results: At a unit price of $520 per vial and assuming no survival benefit with remdesivir, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $298 200/QALY for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and $1 847 000/QALY for patients with mild COVID-19. Although current data do not support a survival benefit, if one was assumed, the cost-effectiveness estimate was $50 100/QALY for the moderate to severe population and $103 400/QALY for the mild population. Another key driver included the hospitalization payment structure (per diem vs bundled payment)., Conclusions: With the current evidence available, remdesivir's price is too high to align with its expected health gains for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results from this study provide a rationale for iterative health technology assessment., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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

Mechanical ventilation is a lifesaving therapy for critically ill patients with respiratory failure, but like all treatments, it has the potential to cause harm if not administered appropriately. This review aims to give an overview of the basic principles of invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Topics covered include modes of mechanical ventilation, respiratory mechanics and ventilator waveform interpretation, strategies for initial ventilator settings, indications and contraindications for noninvasive ventilation, and the effect of the ventilator on kidney function., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

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

Background and Objectives: Despite existing therapies, people with lupus nephritis progress to kidney failure and have reduced life expectancy. Belimumab and voclosporin are two new disease-modifying therapies recently approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, including the following health states: "complete response," "partial response," and "active disease" defined by eGFR and proteinuria changes, kidney failure, and death. Short-term data and mean cohort characteristics were sourced from pivotal clinical trials of belimumab (the Belimumab International Study in Lupus Nephritis) and voclosporin (the Aurinia Urinary Protection Reduction Active-Lupus with Voclosporin trial and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin). Risk of mortality and kidney failure were on the basis of survival modeling using published Kaplan-Meier data. Each drug was compared with the standard of care as represented by the comparator arm in its respective pivotal trial(s) using US health care sector perspective, with a societal perspective also explored., Results: In the health care perspective probabilistic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab compared with its control arm was estimated to be approximately $95,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The corresponding incremental ratio for voclosporin compared with its control arm was approximately $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Compared with their respective standard care arms, the probabilities of belimumab and voclosporin being cost effective at a threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year were 69% and 49%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival in response states, costs and utilities in active disease, and the utilities in response states. In the analysis from a societal perspective, the incremental ratio for belimumab was estimated to be approximately $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental ratio for voclosporin was estimated to be approximately $133,000 per quality-adjusted life year., Conclusions: Compared with their respective standard care arms, belimumab but not voclosporin met willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Despite potential clinical superiority in the informing trials, there remains high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

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

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

The accelerated approval pathway for new drugs in the United States is often praised but faces growing criticism of whether it is finding the appropriate balance between uncertainty, access and cost. To support efforts to strengthen the pathway, this paper provides an analysis of key concerns and the advantages and disadvantages of ten potential policy reforms - those achievable through the US FDA action alone, and those that would require a combination of government, payer and life science industry actions. Accelerated approval sits at the heart of many of the controversies regarding drug approvals and pricing, and this analysis provides perspectives on how best to strengthen the pathway within the broader landscape of an innovative US healthcare system.

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

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 to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Mandrik, Thokala, and Fotheringham received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Importance: The possibility of widespread use of a novel effective therapy for Alzheimer disease (AD) will present important clinical, policy, and financial challenges., Objective: To describe how including different patient, caregiver, and societal treatment-related factors affects estimates of the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical disease-modifying AD treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, the Alzheimer Disease Archimedes Condition Event Simulator was used to simulate the prognosis of a hypothetical cohort of patients selected from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database who received the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Scenario analyses that varied costs and quality of life inputs relevant to patients and caregivers were conducted. The analysis was designed and conducted from June 15, 2019, to September 30, 2020., Exposures: A hypothetical drug that would delay progression to dementia in individuals with MCI compared with usual care., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results: The model included a simulated cohort of patients who scored between 24 and 30 on the Mini-Mental State Examination and had a global Clinical Dementia Rating scale of 0.5, with a required memory box score of 0.5 or higher, at baseline. Using a health care sector perspective, which included only individual patient health care costs, the ICER for the hypothetical treatment was $192 000 per QALY gained. The result decreased to $183 000 per QALY gained in a traditional societal perspective analysis with the inclusion of patient non-health care costs. The inclusion of estimated caregiver health care costs produced almost no change in the ICER, but the inclusion of QALYs gained by caregivers led to a substantial reduction in the ICER for the hypothetical treatment, to $107 000 per QALY gained in the health sector perspective. In the societal perspective scenario, with the broadest inclusion of patient and caregiver factors, the ICER decreased to $74 000 per added QALY., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this economic evaluation suggest that policy makers should be aware that efforts to estimate and include the effects of AD treatments outside those on patients themselves can affect the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses that often underpin assessments of the value of new treatments. Further research and debate on including these factors in assessments that will inform discussions on fair pricing for new treatments are needed.

Purpose: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), dead space fraction has been independently associated with mortality. We hypothesized that early measurement of the difference between arterial and end-tidal CO 2 (arterial-ET difference), a surrogate for dead space fraction, would predict mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS., Methods: We performed two separate exploratory analyses. We first used publicly available databases from the ALTA, EDEN, and OMEGA ARDS Network trials (N = 124) as a derivation cohort to test our hypothesis. We then performed a separate retrospective analysis of patients with ARDS using University of Chicago patients (N = 302) as a validation cohort., Results: The ARDS Network derivation cohort demonstrated arterial-ET difference, vasopressor requirement, age, and APACHE III to be associated with mortality by univariable analysis. By multivariable analysis, only the arterial-ET difference remained significant (P = 0.047). In a separate analysis, the modified Enghoff equation ((P a CO 2 -P ET CO 2 )/P a CO 2 ) was used in place of the arterial-ET difference and did not alter the results. The University of Chicago cohort found arterial-ET difference, age, ventilator mode, vasopressor requirement, and APACHE II to be associated with mortality in a univariate analysis. By multivariable analysis, the arterial-ET difference continued to be predictive of mortality (P = 0.031). In the validation cohort, substitution of the arterial-ET difference for the modified Enghoff equation showed similar results., Conclusion: Arterial to end-tidal CO 2 (ETCO 2 ) difference is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ARDS., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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 to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Beinfeld, Fluetsch, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Ollendorf received funding from ICER for work on this summary and reports consulting and other personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Executive Insight, Sunovion, University of Colorado, World Health Organization, and Eli Lilly, unrelated to this work. Lee and McQueen received funding from ICER for work on this summary.

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 to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, McKenna, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Lin and Kazi received funding from ICER for work on this report.

Objectives: To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies., Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs., Results: The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing., Conclusions: Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Beinfeld, McKenna, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette received funding from ICER for work on this report and has also received fees from Monument Analytics and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this work. The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and Touchette hold a patent for the model described in this report. The model is included in ICER's Interactive Modeler, for which a fee is paid to UIC and Touchette. Atlas also received funding from ICER for work on this report.

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 to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Rind, Herron-Smith, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Walton and Quach, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this report.

At the heart of all health insurance programs lies ethical tension between maximizing the freedom of patients and clinicians to tailor care for the individual and the need to make healthcare affordable. Nowhere is this tension more fiercely debated than in benefit design and coverage policy for pharmaceuticals. This paper focuses on three areas over which there is the most controversy about how to judge whether drug coverage is appropriate: cost-sharing provisions, clinical eligibility criteria, and economic-step therapy and required switching. In each of these domains we present 'ethical goals for access' followed by a series of 'fair design criteria' that can be used by stakeholders to drive more transparent and accountable drug coverage.

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 to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Whittington, Campbell, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.