UNASSIGNED: The current study compared preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference for a prefilled syringe (PFS) versus two RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution (VRR1 and VRR2) in a randomized, single-blinded time and motion study.
UNASSIGNED: Pharmacists, nurses, and pharmacy technicians were randomized to a preparation sequence of the three vaccines. Participants read instructions, then consecutively prepared the three vaccines with a 3-5-min washout period in between. Preparations were video recorded and reviewed by a trained pharmacist for preparation time and errors using predefined, vaccine-specific checklists. Participant demographics, satisfaction with vaccine preparation, and vaccine preference were recorded. Within-subjects analysis of variance was used to compare preparation time. Mixed-effects Poisson and ordered logistic regression models were used to compare the number of preparation errors and satisfaction scores, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Sixty-three pharmacists (60%), nurses (35%), and pharmacy technicians (5%) participated at four sites in the United States. The least squares mean preparation time per dose for PFS was 141.8 s (95% CI = 156.8-126.7; p <.0001) faster than for VRR1, 103.6 s (95% CI = 118.7-88.5; p <.0001) faster than for VRR2, and 122.7 s (95% CI = 134.2-111.2; p <.0001) faster than the pooled VRRs. Overall satisfaction (combined \"Very\" and \"Extremely\") was 87.3% for PFS, 28.6% for VRR1, and 47.6% for VRR2. Most participants (81.0%) preferred the PFS vaccine.
UNASSIGNED: The study is limited by the inability to completely blind observers. To minimize the effects of order, we utilized a 3-sequence block design; however, the order in which the vaccines were prepared may have affected outcomes. Participants were assessed once, whereas if repeated preparations were performed there may have been trained efficiencies gained for each vaccine.
UNASSIGNED: PFS vaccines can greatly simplify the vaccine preparation process, allowing administrators to prepare almost four times more doses per hour than with vial and syringe systems.

UNASSIGNED: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICDs) for primary prevention (PP) of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is underutilized in developing countries. The Improve SCA study has identified a subset of 1.5 primary prevention (1.5PP) patients with a higher risk of SCA and a significant mortality benefit from ICD therapy. From the perspective of China\'s healthcare system, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy vs. no ICD therapy among 1.5PP patients with a view to informing clinical and policy decisions.
UNASSIGNED: A published Markov model was adjusted and verified to simulate the course of the disease and describe different health states of 1.5PP patients. The patient characteristics, mortality, utility and complication estimates were obtained from the Improve SCA study and other literature. Cost inputs were sourced from government tender prices, medical service prices and clinical experts\' surveys in 9 Chinese public hospitals. For both ICD and no ICD therapy, the total medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were modelled over a lifetime horizon and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model parameters. We used the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold recommended by China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations, one to three times China\'s GDP per capita (CNY85,698-CNY257,094) in 2022 Chinese Yuan.
UNASSIGNED: The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICD therapy compared to no ICD therapy is 139,652 CNY/QALY, which is about 1-2 times China\'s GDP per capita. The probability that ICD therapy is cost effective was 92.1%. Results from sensitivity analysis supported the findings of the base case.
UNASSIGNED: ICD therapy compared to no ICD therapy is cost-effective for the 1.5PP patients in China.

UNASSIGNED: This real-world retrospective database study quantified the costs of biomarker testing in a US population of patients with lung or thyroid cancers.
UNASSIGNED: The commercial claims IBM Marketscan database, a de-identified real-world dataset, was used to identify patients diagnosed with lung or thyroid cancer between 1/2015 and 12/2019. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with two or more lung or thyroid diagnosis codes. Patients were excluded who had evidence of prior cancer diagnoses. Subgroup analyses evaluated eligible patients with metastatic disease. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate commercial insurance plan payer and patient out-of-pocket costs for diagnostic testing overall as well as by test procedure code and payer type. Costs were adjusted to 2020 US dollars.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 23,633 patients with lung cancer were eligible, 13,320 of whom had metastatic disease. There were 36,867 patients with thyroid cancer, 2,241 of whom had metastatic disease. Biomarker codes were observed among 68.4/75.8% (lung/metastatic lung) and 18.2/42.3% (thyroid/metastatic thyroid). Few patients had codes for comprehensive biomarker tests (5.2/6.7% lung/metastatic lung, 0.3/2.2% thyroid/metastatic thyroid) Among those with biomarker tests, the median per-patient total payer lifetime costs of all biomarker testing were $394/$462 (lung/metastatic lung) and $148/$232 (thyroid/metastatic thyroid). Total lifetime biomarker costs for payers ranged from a median of $128 (consumer-driven health plans) to $477 (preferred provider organizations). Median lifetime patient out-of-pocket costs were $0.00 for both tumor types and all payer types except for consumer-driven health plans ($12 for thyroid and $10 for metastatic lung).
UNASSIGNED: While comprehensive testing adds to the cost of biomarker testing, these data suggest the relatively low lifetime cost of biomarker testing for both payers and patients. Costs for biomarker testing should not be a limitation to access among these populations with commercial insurance plans in the US.
This real-world retrospective database study found that there is a relatively low lifetime total cost of biomarker testing for the care of patients with lung or thyroid cancers. While comprehensive testing adds to the cost of biomarker testing, these data suggest the relatively low lifetime cost of biomarker testing for both payers and patients. Payer costs for biomarker testing do not appear to be limitation to access among populations with commercial insurance plans in this study.