Citations

Introduction In 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the Coverage with Evidence Development program for items and services with limited evidence of benefit and harm for Medicare beneficiaries, aiming to generate evidence to determine whether they meet the statutory “reasonable and necessary” criteria for coverage. Coverage with Evidence Development requires participation in clinical studies approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (i.e. Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies) as a condition of coverage. We examined the quality of evidence generated by Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies compared with those that informed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ initial Coverage with Evidence Development decisions (i.e. National Coverage Determination studies). Methods Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ webpage, we identified all items and services covered under Coverage with Evidence Development and their Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies. Through searching PubMed and Google Scholar, we identified original research articles that reported results for primary endpoints of Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies. We then reviewed the initial Coverage with Evidence Development decision memos and identified National Coverage Determination studies that were original research.We characterized and compared Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies and National Coverage Determination studies. Results From 2005 to 2023, 26 items and services were covered under the Coverage with Evidence Development program, associated with 196 National Coverage Determination studies (170 (86.7%) clinical trials and 26 (13.3%) registries) and 116 unique Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies (86 (74.1%) clinical trials, 23 (19.8%) registries, 4 (3.4%) claims-based studies, and 3 (2.6%) expanded access studies). Among clinical trial studies, National Coverage Determination studies and Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies did not differ with respect to multi-arm design (59.4% vs 68.6%; p = 0.15). However, among multi-arm clinical trial studies, National Coverage Determination studies were less likely than Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies to be randomized (52.5% vs 93.2%; p < 0.001). Overall, National Coverage Determination studies less frequently had ≥ 1 primary endpoint focused on a clinical outcome measure (65.8% vs 87.9%; p = 0.006) and less frequently exclusively enrolled Medicare beneficiaries (3.1% vs 25.9%; p < 0.001). In addition, National Coverage Determination studies had smaller population sizes than Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies (median 100 (interquartile range, 45–414) vs 302 (interquartile range, 93–1000) patients; p = 0.002). Among Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies, 59 (50.9%) had not yet publicly reported results for the primary endpoint. Discussion Studies required under Medicare’s Coverage with Evidence Development program more often used randomized study designs, had larger patient populations, enrolled US patients, and focused on clinical outcomes as primary endpoints than studies used to inform initial National Coverage Determinations. However, not all Coverage with Evidence Development-approved studies have thus far reported results, which could create uncertainty for patients, physicians, and payers regarding the clinical benefits of covered items and services. Conclusion The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Coverage with Evidence Development program has successfully prompted generation of more robustly designed clinical studies to better inform clinical, regulatory, and coverage decisions compared to studies informing initial coverage decisions. Yet, opportunities exist to further strengthen the design and dissemination of studies required under this program.

Background and Objectives: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common manifestation of connective tissue disease (CTD). (a) Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) can be utilised to improve dyspnoea and quality of life in patients with chronic lung conditions, including both obstructive and restrictive lung diseases. (b) This study aims to determine if PR can be a useful therapy to improve functional capacity and self-reported measures of dyspnoea in patients with CTD-ILD. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of CTD-ILD at a tertiary centre were prospectively enrolled to receive PR in this study. The primary outcome was a change in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) between baseline and 8 weeks after PR. The secondary outcome measures included pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS→) Dyspnoea, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), which were collected before and at 8 weeks after PR. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Twenty-one patients were included in the data analysis. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1 . Following PR, there was a statistically significant improvement in the 6MWT ( Figure 1 ). Improvement in scores was observed in LCQ and the symptom domain of the SGRQ. Trends towards improvement were noted in PROMIS → Dyspnoea scores. Conclusion: In CTD-ILD patients, an 8-week course of PR led to improvements in functional capacity (6MWT) and certain quality of life domains (LCQ and symptom domain of SGRQ). Future studies are required to determine the longer-term benefit of PR in CTD-ILD patients and if these improvements are sustained.

OBJECTIVE The definitive influence of prestroke disability on outcomes in patients with a low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO) remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the impact of prestroke disability on outcomes in this specific population. METHODS Data from 32 international centers for AIS-LVO patients with a low ASPECTS who underwent EVT between January 2013 and December 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Low ASPECTS and prestroke disability were defined as ASPECTS values of 2–5 and prestroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≥ 2. The primary outcome was a return to the prestroke mRS score at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were independent ambulation (mRS scores of 0–3) or a return to the prestroke mRS score at 90 days, good functional outcome (mRS scores of 0–2) or a return to the prestroke mRS score at 90 days, successful recanalization, and 90-day mortality. Safety outcomes were any intracranial hemorrhage or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. A symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was defined as an intracranial hemorrhage with an associated worsening of ≥ 4 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without prestroke disability. RESULTS Of 293 patients, 50 (17.1%) had a prestroke disability. Of 50 patients, 20 (40.0%), 24 (48.0%), and 6 (12.0%) had prestroke mRS scores of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The primary outcome showed no significant difference between the two groups. Compared with patients without prestroke disability, those with prestroke disability had a significantly smaller proportion of independent ambulation or return to prestroke mRS score (adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03–0.53) and good functional outcome or return to prestroke mRS score (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05–0.91). Other secondary and safety outcomes showed no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS The present study indicated that prestroke disability was not associated with a return to the prestroke mRS score at 90 days or intracranial hemorrhage. Physicians should not routinely exclude AIS-LVO patients with a low ASPECTS who have prestroke disability from EVT based on prestroke disability alone.

Background. The current model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception policies for portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) require serial right heart catheterizations (RHCs) every 3 mo to maintain exception points. RHC is necessary for the initial diagnosis of POPH, but the utility of serial catheterizations has not been studied. In patients with POPH MELD exceptions, we sought to compare noninvasive and invasive hemodynamics and determine the sensitivity of echocardiography for the detection of hemodynamically severe POPH that would preclude liver transplant. Methods. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with POPH MELD exceptions who underwent liver transplant from December 2008 to January 2024. Results were validated at an external center. Echocardiograms and RHCs performed within 1 mo were compared. Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots assessed the association between echocardiogram and RHC variables. We examined varied echocardiographic parameters to optimize sensitivity for the detection of hemodynamically severe POPH. Results. Twenty-two individuals underwent 60 follow-up RHCs with paired echocardiograms. Right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and cardiac index estimated with echocardiogram were not strongly correlated with RHC measurements at follow-up (RVSP and RHC pulmonary artery systolic pressure: R = 0.30, P = 0.02; cardiac index: R = 0.17, P = 0.21). However, echocardiograms with RVSP ≥48 mm Hg had 100% sensitivity for detecting hemodynamically severe POPH, with 100% negative predictive value. In external validation of 13 paired echocardiograms and RHCs, our algorithm had 64% specificity and 100% negative predictive value. Conclusions. Although echocardiogram and RHC hemodynamic estimates were not strongly correlated, these results could potentially negate the current requirement for repeat RHC every 3 mo to maintain POPH MELD exception.