Search

Although leaders and other commentators have called for the medical profession's greater engagement in improving systems of care and population health, neither medical education nor the practice environment has fostered such engagement. Missing have been a clear definition of physicians' public roles, reasonable limits to what can be expected, and familiarity with tasks that are compatible with busy medical practices. We address these issues by proposing a definition and a conceptual model of public roles that require evidence of disease causation and are guided by the feasibility and efficacy of physician involvement. We then frame a public agenda for individual physicians and physician organizations that focuses on advocacy and community participation. By doing so, we aim to stimulate dialogue about the appropriateness of such roles and promote physician engagement with pressing health issues in the public arena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an era of increasing competition in medical care, critical pathway guidelines have emerged as one of the most popular new initiatives intended to reduce costs while maintaining or even improving the quality of care. Developed primarily for high-volume hospital diagnoses, critical pathways display goals for patients and provide the corresponding ideal sequence and timing of staff actions for achieving those goals with optimal efficiency. Despite the rapid dissemination of critical pathway programs in hospitals throughout the United States, many uncertainties remain about their development, implementation, and evaluation. In addition, serious concerns have been raised about their effect on patient outcomes and satisfaction with care, physician autonomy, malpractice risks, and the teaching and research missions of many hospitals. Underlying these concerns is the absence of data from controlled trials to evaluate the effects of critical pathways. Physicians should understand the potential benefits and problems associated with critical pathways because physicians are increasingly being asked to provide leadership for pathway programs. Physicians and other health service investigators should also develop methods to study pathways in evolving health care settings. Although the promise of reduced costs and improved quality is enticing, the gaps in our knowledge about critical pathways are extensive; therefore, like any new health care technology, pathway programs should be fully evaluated in order to understand the conditions under which that promise may be fulfilled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the influence of patient characteristics on practice profiling. Using the example of specialty referrals by primary care physicians, we evaluated the impact of adjusting for patient characteristics (age/sex vs case mix) on the estimation of practice variation, the identification of outlier practices, and the evaluation of potential predictors of variation.Design and Setting: We applied several measurement strategies to a retrospective cohort of patients (N = 37,830) within 52 physician practices in a large staff-model health maintenance organization during a 1-year period.Outcome Measures: We calculated unadjusted referral rates and adjusted standardized referral ratios for each physician. Using these, we determined coefficients of variation and statistical "outlier status."Results: Adjustment for patient characteristics decreased the observed variation in referral profiles, with a decrease of more than 50% in the coefficient of variation. Three quarters of the physicians identified as statistical outliers with use of an age/sex-adjusted measure were no longer identified as such with use of an case-mix-adjusted measure. Several key predictors of unadjusted referral rate (including physician age, practice tenure, site of practice, and extent of laboratory test ordering) dropped out of regression models when the outcome variable was adjusted for patient characteristics.Conclusion: Failure to adjust for case mix in physician practice profiles may lead to overestimates of variation and misidentification of outliers. To the extent that unadjusted practice profiles are used for decisions about education, sanctions, or employment, physicians may be subject to inequitable decisions and actions. Misinformation about the causes and extent of practice variation may also lead to misdirection of scarce resources for quality improvement efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Objectives: To demonstrate how health technology assessment methods can be used to support Medicare's price negotiations for apixaban and rivaroxaban., Methods: Following the statutory outline of evidence that will be considered by Medicare, we conducted a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses, and decision analyses to evaluate the health outcomes and costs associated with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin and dabigatran for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Our methods inform discussions about the therapeutic impact of apixaban and rivaroxaban and suggest price premiums above their therapeutic alternatives over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds., Results: Network meta-analyses found apixaban resulted in a lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin and dabigatran and a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin but not compared with dabigatran. Rivaroxaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin but not dabigatran, and there was no difference in major bleeding. Decision-analytic modeling of apixaban suggested annual price premiums up to $4350 above the price of warfarin and up to $530 above the price for dabigatran at cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200 000 per equal value of life-years gained. Analyses of rivaroxaban showed an annual price premium of up to $3920 above warfarin and no premium above that paid for dabigatran., Conclusions: Although health technology assessment is typically performed near the time of regulatory approval, with modifications, we produced comparative clinical and relative cost-effectiveness findings to help guide negotiations on a "fair" price for drugs on the market for over a decade., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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

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.

Objectives: To identify cytokine signature clusters in patients with septic shock., Design: Prospective observational cohort study., Setting: Single academic center in the United States., Patients: Adult (≥ 18 yr old) patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock requiring vasoactive medication support., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: One hundred fourteen patients with septic shock completed cytokine measurement at time of enrollment (t 1 ) and 24 hours later (t 2 ). Unsupervised random forest analysis of the change in cytokines over time, defined as delta (t 2 -t 1 ), identified three clusters with distinct cytokine profiles. Patients in cluster 1 had the lowest initial levels of circulating cytokines that decreased over time. Patients in cluster 2 and cluster 3 had higher initial levels that decreased over time in cluster 2 and increased in cluster 3. Patients in clusters 2 and 3 had higher mortality compared with cluster 1 (clusters 1-3: 11% vs 31%; odds ratio [OR], 3.56 [1.10-14.23] vs 54% OR, 9.23 [2.89-37.22]). Cluster 3 was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 5.24; p = 0.005) in multivariable analysis. There were no significant differences in initial clinical severity scoring or steroid use between the clusters. Analysis of either t 1 or t 2 cytokine measurements alone or in combination did not reveal clusters with clear clinical significance., Conclusions: Longitudinal measurement of cytokine profiles at initiation of vasoactive medications and 24 hours later revealed three distinct cytokine signature clusters that correlated with clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Drs. Zhao, Patel, Stutz, Pearson, Adegunsoye, and Verhoef received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Patel’s institution received funding from the NIH (K23 HL148387); she received funding from The American College of Chest Physicians and Merck. Dr. Pearson received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (T32 HL 7605). Dr. Hall received funding from McGraw Hill Publishing. Drs. Hall and Adegunsoye received funding from the American College of Chest Physicians. Dr. Adegunsoye received funding from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation and the NIH; he disclosed that he serves on a pulmonary fibrosis educational forum and advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim, Inogen, and Roche. Dr. Verhoef’s institution received funding from the NHLBI. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

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.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is an international standard in cost-effectiveness analysis. A known concern arises from the relatively lower QALY gains attributed to treatments that extend the life of individuals with chronic disability. We analyze here the advantages and disadvantages of the equal value life-year (evLY) as an alternative or a complementary measure to the QALY, and share learned experiences from using this measure in health technology assessments. We present the conceptual rationale for the evLY, describe how it is estimated, and assess the differences in results between analyses based on the evLY and the QALY. We share a how-to guide in estimating the evLY using a downloadable tool and summarize our empirical experience using this measure. Incremental evLYs are feasible and address concerns regarding the risk for a cost-effectiveness analysis to undervalue treatments for people with chronic disabilities. Based on our set of analyses using the evLY, a threshold of $84,000 per evLY gained would be needed to maintain alignment with a threshold of $100,000 per added QALY. The evLY is a measure of health gain that can be used as an alternative or a complement to the QALY to address concerns related to undervaluing treatments that extend the life of individuals with serious illness or chronic disability. We recommend that it be reported within all cost-effectiveness analyses but may have special relevance in the current political environment in the USA, where use of the QALY is often challenged or prohibited., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

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.

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: 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.)

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.

Rationale: In patients who are mechanically ventilated, diaphragm thinning on ultrasound is thought to correlate with diaphragm atrophy and has been associated with prolonged intubation. Factors other than atrophy, however, may cause changes in diaphragm thickness, which may confound studies examining changes in diaphragm thickness over time. Objectives: To determine if changes in the mode of mechanical ventilation or an interruption of sedatives have immediate effects on diaphragm thickness measurements in adult patients in the intensive care unit who are mechanically ventilated. Methods: Adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 48 hours were included. Diaphragm thickness was measured at end-expiration and peak inspiration using ultrasound while patients were receiving both volume assist-control and pressure-support modes in a randomized crossover fashion. In patients receiving sedatives, additional measurements were taken after an interruption of sedatives. Measurements were compared between modes and on assist-control before and after an interruption of sedatives. Results: Of 85 patients enrolled, 66 had measurements on assist-control and spontaneous modes, and 40 had measurements before and after an interruption of sedatives. End-expiratory diaphragm thickness increased by a median of 0.08 mm after an interruption of sedatives (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.002 mm to 0.164 mm; P  = 0.017), corresponding to a median increase of 6.5%. No difference was seen when comparing measurements taken on volume assist-control and pressure support (median difference, 0 mm; 95% CI, -0.07 mm to 0.08 mm; P  = 0.98). Conclusions: End-expiratory diaphragm thickness increased by 6.5% after an interruption of sedatives. The effect of sedatives on measured diaphragm thickness should be considered in future studies examining changes in diaphragm thickness over time. Clinical trial registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04319939).

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.)

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., (© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.)

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.)