Gaining Consensus Around Patient Risk Groups and Prognostic Profiles to Guide CMV Management Among Patients With Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Insights From a Delphi Panel With Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Experts.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to characterize patient risk groups and prognostic profiles to optimize clinical decision-making and guide appropriate medical cytomegalovirus (CMV) management among patients with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). METHODS: Between 8/2021 and 2/2022, a 3-round modified Delphi study was conducted to generate consensus among 10 international experts in HSCT and infectious diseases. Experts were asked about treatment and prognoses for patients in 7 distinct clinical scenarios. Furthermore, experts were asked to risk-stratify patients by pre-/post-transplant characteristics. Consensus around opting for/against a treatment was observed if ≥75% or <25% of experts reported ≥50% likelihood to recommend or if treatments were ranked inside/outside the top 2 options and ≥75% of experts were within 1 SD of mean ranks. RESULTS: Experts agreed on several unmet needs in CMV disease management post-HSCT, particularly avoidance of treatment-limiting toxicities with conventional CMV therapy and the emergence of both refractory and drug-resistant treatment failures. Experts considered CMV viral load, resistance profile, and route of administration as critical to treatment selection. For newer CMV therapeutic options, experts listed a lack of long-term use data, concerns over potential resistance, high cost, and limited availability as challenges restricting adoption and successful patient management. CONCLUSIONS: Experts achieved consensus around patient risk stratifications and factors influencing therapeutic options. Recommendations emerging from this Delphi study may support practicing physicians when confronted with challenging CMV scenarios in patients with HSCT.

Expert Consensus on Comprehensive Early Rhythm Control in Addition to Guideline-Based Care for Atrial Fibrillation: A Modified Delphi Survey.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) practice guidelines recommend a rhythm-control strategy to improve symptoms and quality of life, noting the side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation. Emerging evidence indicates that comprehensive early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes versus the usual care. Using an online modified Delphi survey approach, perspectives and expert consensus among electrophysiologists were examined through a series of ranking and likelihood questions around treatment decision-making on (1) the use of comprehensive early rhythm-control strategies in patients with AF based on guidelines and emerging research and (2) treatment selection factors. A panel of 17 electrophysiologists reached a consensus on using early rhythm control (median 90, interquartile range 14) based on the view that early intervention improved cardiovascular outcomes (mean rank 1.6 of 3, 82% within 1 SD) and symptoms (1.8 of 3, 41%). AF-related symptoms were identified as the most important in making a treatment initiation decision (1.1 of 7, 88%), followed by AF type (2.5 of 7, 82%). Participants were most likely to initiate treatment at AF symptom onset (median 80; interquartile range 6). In making treatment selection decisions, participants ranked short-term/long-term safety (1.9 of 7, 88%) and efficacy (1.8 of 7, 53%) as the top 2 considerations. In conclusion, experts were in favor of early rhythm control; however, additional research is needed to address the role that early rhythm-control strategies play in current AF treatment management algorithms.

Expert consensus established around flexible, individualized migraine treatment utilizing a modified Delphi panel.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize treatment decision-making processes and formalize consensus regarding key factors headache specialists consider in treatment decisions for patients with migraine, considering novel therapies. BACKGROUND: Migraine therapies have long been subject to binary classification, acute versus preventive, due to limitations of available drugs. The emergence of novel therapies that can be used more flexibly creates an opportunity to rethink this binary classification. To determine the role of these novel therapies in treatment, it is critical to understand whether existing guidelines reflect clinical practice and to establish consensus around factors driving management. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted with migraine clinical experts. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; Round 2 involved an online discussion of aggregated Round 1 results; and Round 3 allowed participants to revise Round 1 responses, incorporating Round 2 insights. Questions elicited likelihood ratings (0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely), rankings, and estimates on treatment decision-making. RESULTS: Nineteen experts completed three Delphi rounds. Experts strongly agreed on definitions for "acute" (median = 100, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 5) and "preventive" treatment (median = 90, IQR = 15), but noted a need for treatment customization for patients (median = 100, IQR = 6). Experts noted certain aspects of guidelines may no longer apply based on established tolerability and efficacy of newer acute and preventive agents (median = 91, IQR = 17). Further, experts agreed on a treatment category referred to as "situational prevention" (or "short-term prevention") for patients with reliable and predictable migraine triggers (median = 100, IQR = 10) or time-limited periods when headache avoidance is important (median = 100, IQR = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Using the modified Delphi method, a panel of migraine experts identified the importance of customizing treatment for people with migraine and the utility of "situational prevention," given the ability of new treatment options to meet this need and the potential to clinically identify patients and time periods when this approach would add value.

Gaining consensus around patient risk groups and prognostic profiles to guide CMV management among patients with solid organ transplant: Insights from a Delphi panel with SOT experts.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to characterize patient risk groups and respective prognostic profiles to optimize clinical decision-making and guide appropriate medical cytomegalovirus (CMV) management among patients with solid organ transplant (SOT). METHODS: Between September 2021 and February 2022, a three-round modified Delphi study was conducted to generate consensus among 14 international experts in virology and organ transplantation. Experts were asked about treatment and prognoses for patients in seven distinct clinical scenarios. Furthermore, experts were asked to risk-stratify patients by pre-/post-transplant characteristics. Consensus around opting for/against a treatment was observed if ≥75% or <25% of experts reported ≥50% likelihood to recommend or if treatments were ranked inside/outside the top two options and ≥75% of experts were within 1 standard deviation of the mean rank. RESULTS: Experts agreed on several unmet needs in CMV disease management post-SOT, particularly avoidance of treatment-limiting toxicities with conventional CMV therapy and emergence of both primary refractory and drug resistant treatment failures. Experts considered CMV viral load, resistance profile, and route of administration as critical to treatment selection. For newer CMV therapeutic options, experts listed lack of long-term use data, concerns over potential resistance, high cost and limited availability as challenges restricting adoption, and successful patient management. CONCLUSION: Experts achieved consensus around patient risk stratifications and factors influencing therapeutic options. Recommendations emerging from this Delphi study may support practicing physicians when confronted with challenging CMV scenarios in SOT patients, but additional experiences with newer anti-CMV agents are needed to re-validate expert consensus and update post-transplant CMV guidelines.

Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis to assess treatment value in hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the comprehensive value of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) compared with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin (PEG/riba) employing a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA). STUDY DESIGN: To assess the societal-level cost-effectiveness of DAA treatment for HCV, we extended a previously published discrete-time Markov simulation model of HCV transmission and progression to include market dynamics and broader elements of value. METHODS: We followed a stepwise process to add novel value elements to a traditional CEA model for HCV treatments. For each additional element of value, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of DAAs compared with PEG/riba. RESULTS: The health technology assessment (HTA)-style model yielded an ICER value of $64,512 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Adding transmission dynamics resulted in an ICER value of $52,971 per QALY, whereas accounting for transmission dynamics and dynamic price and efficacy further decreased ICER values by 90% to $6406 per QALY. Incorporating genericization, productivity loss, caregiver spillover, and differential valuations of LYs vs quality of life, disease severity, and insurance value further decreased the ICER value to $4487 per QALY, a 93% reduction from the baseline HTA-style CEA to the fully realized GCEA. CONCLUSIONS: Our GCEA study results confirm that DAAs are a cost-effective treatment for HCV compared with PEG/riba even when using conventional cost-effectiveness approaches. Incorporating broader elements of value resulted in more than a 10-fold improvement in cost-effectiveness, emphasizing the substantive impact of a generalized approach and the importance of incorporating GCEAs into decision-making.

Estimating the impact of biosimilar entry on prices and expenditures in rheumatoid arthritis: a case study of targeted immune modulators.

OBJECTIVE: To model changes in prices, utilization, and expenditures of targeted immune modulators (TIMs) for rheumatoid arthritis, accounting for biosimilar entry. METHODS: Using IQVIA National Sales Perspective data between 2013 and 2019, we examined sales and expenditures of biologics and non-biological complex molecules, 20 quarters before and after patent exclusivity milestones. We estimated the impact of a molecule's exclusivity milestones and biosimilar entry on prices, using a regression discontinuity design (RDD). We then combined the RDD estimate with historical trends to assess the impact of adalimumab's exclusivity milestones on future TIM expenditures. RESULTS: Changes in average molecule prices were associated largely with biosimilar uptake. For molecules with relatively high biosimilar uptake (>60%), prices fell considerably (-21.2% to -59.3%) one year after exclusivity milestones, whereas molecules with lower biosimilar uptake (<10%) experienced smaller price decreases (-2.4% to -8.4%). Average price reduction at the molecule level after biosimilar entry was not significant (-18.6%; p = .657). When applying the RDD results after adalimumab's exclusivity milestones, its projected share of total TIM market expenditures decreased from 48.0% in 2019 to 26.0% in 2025, whereas expenditures on Janus kinase inhibitors increased from 4.0% to 34.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Biologics facing biosimilar competition may experience price decreases, potentially offering substantial savings to payers, patients, and society, although the magnitude of these estimates depends on biosimilar uptake. Formulary placement, along with manufacturer-payer dynamics, may also play a role in determining the impact on price and market uptake of biosimilars.

Schizophrenia population health management: perspectives of and lessons learned from population health decision makers.

BACKGROUND: Despite therapeutic advances for patients with schizophrenia, improving patient outcomes and reducing the cost of care continue to challenge formulary decision makers. OBJECTIVES: To (1) understand the perspectives of formulary decision makers on challenges to optimal schizophrenia population management and (2) identify best practices and recommendations for mitigating these challenges. METHODS: This mixed-methods study, conducted in a double-blind manner, comprised in-depth telephone interviews with formulary decision makers from February through May 2020, and a web-based follow-on survey that was sent to all participants in October 2020. US-based formulary decision makers were recruited if they were directly involved in schizophrenia drug formulary or coverage decision making for national or regional payers, health systems, or behavioral health centers. Formulary decision makers' perceptions of challenges, policies, and programs related to schizophrenia population health management were assessed generally and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 19 formulary decision makers participated in the interviews and 18 (95%) completed the survey. Participants reported a spectrum of patient- and payer-driven challenges in schizophrenia population health management, including medication nonadherence, high pharmacy and medical costs, and frequent hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Participants noted that COVID-19 had worsened all identified challenges, although patient unemployment (mean score of 2.00 on a scale of 1 [made much worse] to 5 [made much better]) and reduced access to psychiatric care (mean score, 2.12) were most negatively affected. The most common strategies implemented in order to improve schizophrenia population health management included case management (89%), telemedicine (83%), care coordination programs (72%), strategies to mitigate barriers to accessing medication (61%), and providing nonmedical services to address social determinants of health (56%). Participants noted that, ideally, all treatments for schizophrenia would be available on their formularies without utilization management policies in place in order to increase accessibility to medication, but cost to the health plans made that difficult. Whereas 61% of respondents believed that long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) were currently underused in their organizations, only 28% represented organizations with open access policies for LAIs. Participants believed that among patients with schizophrenia, LAIs were most beneficial for those with a history of poor or uncertain adherence to oral medications (mean score of 4.50 on a scale of 1 [not at all beneficial] to 5 [extremely beneficial]) and those with recurring emergency department visits and inpatient stays (mean score, 3.94). Study participants reported slightly increased use of LAIs (mean score of 3.17 on a scale of 1 [negatively impacted] to 5 [positively impacted]) among their patients with schizophrenia in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; 29% of participants reported easing access restrictions for LAIs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants described persisting challenges and various approaches intended to improve schizophrenia population health management. They also recommended strategies to optimize future health management for this population, including expanding programs to address social determinants of health and mitigating barriers to accessing treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Roach, Graf, Pednekar, and Chou are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received financial support from Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, to conduct this study. Chou owns equity in Precision Medicine Group, the parent company of PRECISIONheor. Lin and Benson are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Doshi has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or both, for Acadia, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Sage Therapeutics and has received research funding from AbbVie, Biogen, Humana, Janssen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, PhRMA, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant.

A Delphi Consensus Approach for Difficult-to-Treat Patients with Severe Hemophilia A without Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, there has been an increase in novel therapeutic options to treat hemophilia A. It is still unclear how these novel treatments are used in the management of patients with hemophilia A, particularly those with challenging clinical scenarios who are typically excluded in clinical trials. PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand the areas of consensus and disagreement among hematologists regarding the preferences toward therapeutic approaches for difficult-to-treat patients with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During February-June 2020, a three-round modified Delphi study was conducted to generate consensus among 13 US experts in the field of hemophilia. Experts were asked about their preferences toward therapeutic options for patients with challenging clinical situations, including age-related morbidities (eg, myocardial infarction, joint arthropathy), increasing demand for high-impact physical activities, early onset osteoporosis, and newborns with hemophilia A. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement between the panelists. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on many, but not all cases, leaving uncertainty about appropriateness of therapeutic approaches for some patients where clinical evidence is not available or driven by physicians' or patients' preferences toward therapeutic options. A majority of panelists preferred FVIII replacement therapy rather than emicizumab prophylaxis for the challenging cases presented due to established evidence on safety, efficacy, and level of bleed protection for FVIII treatment. CONCLUSION: Recommendations emerging from this study may help guide practicing hematologists in the management of challenging hemophilia A cases. Future studies are needed to address treatment options in the clinical cases where no consensus was reached.

Understanding the evolution of coverage policies for prophylaxis treatments of hemophilia A without inhibitors: a payer Delphi panel.

BACKGROUND: The landscape for hemophilia A prophylaxis is rapidly expanding from factor VIII replacement therapy to include novel treatments such as nonfactor replacement therapies that may enhance coagulation (e.g., emicizumab) or inhibit anticoagulant pathways (e.g., fitusiran and concizumab). For payers, this expansion presents challenges in balancing well-established treatments with new options that cost more and have lesser known real-world safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate likely coverage practices for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies among U.S. payers given evolving real-world data on safety and efficacy. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted with representatives of U.S. commercial health plans who had considerable expertise in managing populations of patients with hemophilia. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; round 2 involved an online discussion about the aggregated results from round 1; and round 3 allowed participants to revise their responses from round 1 based on insights gained during round 2. Questions elicited ratings, rankings, and estimates on access restrictions based on given safety and efficacy information for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies. Consensus was reached if ≥ 74% of panelists (14 of 19) were within 1 SD of the median group estimate during round 3. RESULTS: 19 Payers participated in the research. Among them, 94% dealt with commercial insurance, 94% with Medicare, and 81% with Medicaid; 79% had spent ≥ 5 years in their current role. Panelists reported limited access restrictions on hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies; the most common restrictions were prior authorization (n = 16, 84%) and quantity level limits (n = 13, 67%). Tiering and step therapy were reported by 7 respondents (39%). Respondents agreed that there was an 80% median likelihood that ≥ 9 additional patients with any safety event (e.g., thrombotic event, death) per year would trigger access restrictions, with the median likelihood of restrictions increasing to 95% for another ≥ 10 patients with safety events per year. Respondents also agreed that > 5 thrombotic events requiring treatment per patient per year would have a 98% median likelihood of leading to access restrictions and that ≥ 5 years of real-world safety and efficacy data would be highly likely (95% median likelihood) to affect coverage decisions. Noncoverage was highly unlikely (ranked fifth or sixth of 6 by 14 respondents), as was no restriction-coverage parity (ranked sixth of 6 by 10 respondents). All else being equal, cost continues to affect access policies, with respondents agreeing that a 13%-30% difference in net cost may lead to preferred formulary treatment for a drug with superior efficacy and noninferior safety, inferior efficacy and noninferior safety, or noninferior efficacy and inferior safety. CONCLUSIONS: Payers prefer treatments with well-understood efficacy, safety, and cost over newer treatments with uncertain long-term effects. Relatively unrestricted access to legacy and new hemophilia A prophylaxis will likely continue unless additional real-world safety concerns or major cost differences emerge. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this study was provided by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, which was involved in study concept and design. Graf, Tuly, Harley, and Pednekar are employees of PRECISIONheor, a research consultancy to the health and life sciences industries that was contracted by Takeda to conduct this study and write the manuscript. Batt served as a consultant on this project through PRECISIONheor.