Project Baby Bear: Rapid precision care incorporating rWGS in 5 California children's hospitals demonstrates improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care

Genetic disorders are a leading contributor to mortality in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). Rapid whole-genome sequencing (rWGS)-based rapid precision medicine (RPM) is an intervention that has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care. However, the feasibility of broad clinical deployment has not been established. The objective of this study was to implement RPM based on rWGS and evaluate the clinical and economic impact of this implementation as a first line diagnostic test in the California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program. Project Baby Bear was a payor funded, prospective, real-world quality improvement project in the regional ICUs of five tertiary care children's hospitals. Participation was limited to acutely ill Medi-Cal beneficiaries who were admitted November 2018 to May 2020, were <1 year old and within one week of hospitalization, or had just developed an abnormal response to therapy. The whole cohort received RPM. There were two prespecified primary outcomes-changes in medical care reported by physicians and changes in the cost of care. The majority of infants were from underserved populations. Of 184 infants enrolled, 74 (40%) received a diagnosis by rWGS that explained their admission in a median time of 3 days. In 58 (32%) affected individuals, rWGS led to changes in medical care. Testing and precision medicine cost $1.7 million and led to $2.2-2.9 million cost savings. rWGS-based RPM had clinical utility and reduced net health care expenditures for infants in regional ICUs. rWGS should be considered early in ICU admission when the underlying etiology is unclear.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has benefits over open surgery for lumbar decompression and/or fusion. Published literature on its cost-effectiveness vs open techniques is mixed.

OBJECTIVE

Systematically review the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open lumbar spinal surgical decompression, fusion, or discectomy using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and a manual search from the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) database and National Health Service economic evaluation database was conducted. Studies that included adult populations undergoing surgery for degenerative changes in the lumbar spine (stenosis, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis) and reported outcomes of costing analysis, CEA, or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were included.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included. Three studies assessed outcomes of MIS vs open discectomy. All 3 reported statistically significant lower total costs in the MIS, compared with the open group, with similar reported gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Two studies reported cost differences in MIS vs open laminectomy, with significantly lower total costs attributed to the MIS group. Twelve studies reported findings on the relative direct costs of MIS vs open lumbar fusion. Among those, 3 of the 4 studies comparing single-level MIS-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and open TLIF reported lower total costs associated with MIS procedures. Six studies reported cost evaluation of single- and 2-level TLIF procedures. Lower total costs were found in the MIS group compared with the open fusion group in all studies except for the subgroup analysis of 2-level fusions in a single study. Three of these 6 studies reported cost-effectiveness (cost/QALY). MIS fusion was found to be more cost-effective than open fusion in all 3 studies.

CONCLUSION

The studies reviewed were of poor to moderate methodological quality. Generally, studies reported a reduced cost associated with MIS vs open surgery and suggested better cost-effectiveness, particularly in MIS vs open single- and 2-level TLIF procedure. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Therefore, this review was unable to conclusively recommend MIS over open surgery from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The incidence of spinal decompressive and fusion surgey and financial constraints on healthcare services continue to increase. This study aims to identify the cost and clinical effectiveness of common approaches to spinal surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3a.

Economic Evaluation of Digital Therapeutic Care Apps for Unsupervised Treatment of Low Back Pain: Monte Carlo Simulation

BACKGROUND

Digital therapeutic care (DTC) programs are unsupervised app-based treatments that provide video exercises and educational material to patients with nonspecific low back pain during episodes of pain and functional disability. German statutory health insurance can reimburse DTC programs since 2019, but evidence on efficacy and reasonable pricing remains scarce. This paper presents a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate the efficacy and cost-utility of a DTC app against treatment as usual (TAU) in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a PSA in the form of a Monte Carlo simulation based on the deterministic base case analysis to account for model assumptions and parameter uncertainty. We also intend to explore to what extent the results in this probabilistic analysis differ from the results in the base case analysis and to what extent a shortage of outcome data concerning quality-of-life (QoL) metrics impacts the overall results.

METHODS

The PSA builds upon a state-transition Markov chain with a 4-week cycle length over a model time horizon of 3 years from a recently published deterministic cost-utility analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations and a cohort size of 10,000 was employed to evaluate the cost-utility from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from Veterans RAND 6-Dimension (VR-6D) and Short-Form 6-Dimension (SF-6D) single utility scores. Finally, we also simulated reducing the price for a 3-month app prescription to analyze at which price threshold DTC would result in being the dominant strategy over TAU in Germany.

RESULTS

The Monte Carlo simulation yielded on average a €135.97 (a currency exchange rate of EUR €1=US $1.069 is applicable) incremental cost and 0.004 incremental QALYs per person and year for the unsupervised DTC app strategy compared to in-person physiotherapy in Germany. The corresponding incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) amounts to an additional €34,315.19 per additional QALY. DTC yielded more QALYs in 54.96% of the iterations. DTC dominates TAU in 24.04% of the iterations for QALYs. Reducing the app price in the simulation from currently €239.96 to €164.61 for a 3-month prescription could yield a negative ICUR and thus make DTC the dominant strategy, even though the estimated probability of DTC being more effective than TAU is only 54.96%.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-makers should be cautious when considering the reimbursement of DTC apps since no significant treatment effect was found, and the probability of cost-effectiveness remains below 60% even for an infinite willingness-to-pay threshold. More app-based studies involving the utilization of QoL outcome parameters are urgently needed to account for the low and limited precision of the available QoL input parameters, which are crucial to making profound recommendations concerning the cost-utility of novel apps.