Trust in information is developing into a vitally important topic as the Internet becomes increasingly ubiquitous within society. Although many discussions of trust in this environment focus on issues like security, technical reliability, or e‐commerce, few address the problem of trust in the information obtained from the Internet. The authors assert that there is a strong need for theoretical and empirical research on trust within the field of information science. As an initial step, the present study develops a model of trust in digital information by integrating the research on trust from the behavioral and social sciences with the research on information quality and human– computer interaction. The model positions trust as a key mediating variable between information quality and information usage, with important consequences for both the producers and consumers of digital information. The authors close by outlining important directions for future research on trust in information science and technology.

Introduction Reliable cost and resource use data for COVID-19 hospitalizations are crucial to better inform local healthcare resource decisions; however, available data are limited and vary significantly. Methods COVID-19 hospital admissions data from the Premier Healthcare Database were evaluated to estimate hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status. Adult COVID-19 patients (ICD-10-CM: U07.1) hospitalized in the US from April 1 to December 31, 2020, were identified. Analyses were stratified by patient and hospital characteristics, levels of care during hospitalization, and discharge status. Factors associated with changes in costs, LOS, and discharge status were estimated using regression analyses. Monthly trends in costs, LOS, and discharge status were examined. Results Of the 247,590 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 49% were women, 76% were aged ≥ 50, and 36% were admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Overall median hospital LOS, cost, and cost/day were 6 days, US$11,267, and $1772, respectively; overall median ICU LOS, cost, and cost/day were 5 days, $13,443, and $2902, respectively. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation had the highest hospital and ICU median costs ($47,454 and $41,510) and LOS (16 and 11 days), respectively. Overall, 14% of patients died in hospital and 52% were discharged home. Older age, Black and Caucasian race, hypertension and obesity, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and discharge to long-term care facilities were major drivers of costs, LOS, and risk of death. Admissions in December had significantly lower median hospital and ICU costs and LOS compared to April. Conclusion The burden from COVID-19 in terms of hospital and ICU costs and LOS has been substantial, though significant decreases in cost and LOS and increases in the share of hospital discharges to home were observed from April to December 2020. These estimates will be useful for inputs to economic models, disease burden forecasts, and local healthcare resource planning. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01887-4.

ObjectivesThe study (206347) compared organ damage progression in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received belimumab in the BLISS long-term extension (LTE) study with propensity score (PS)-matched patients treated with standard of care (SoC) from the Toronto Lupus Cohort (TLC).MethodsA systematic literature review identified 17 known predictors of organ damage to calculate a PS for each patient. Patients from the BLISS LTE and the TLC were PS matched posthoc 1:1 based on their PS (±calliper). The primary endpoint was difference in change in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score from baseline to 5 years.ResultsFor the 5- year analysis, of 567 (BLISS LTE n=195; TLC n=372) patients, 99 from each cohort were 1:1 PS matched. Change in SDI score at Year 5 was significantly lower for patients treated with belimumab compared with SoC (−0.434; 95% CI –0.667 to –0.201; p<0.001). For the time to organ damage progression analysis (≥1 year follow-up), the sample included 965 (BLISS LTE n=259; TLC n=706) patients, of whom 179 from each cohort were PS-matched. Patients receiving belimumab were 61% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year compared with patients treated with SoC (HR 0.391; 95% CI 0.253 to 0.605; p<0.001). Among the SDI score increases, the proportion of increases ≥2 was greater in the SoC group compared with the belimumab group.ConclusionsPS-matched patients receiving belimumab had significantly less organ damage progression compared with patients receiving SoC.

No abstract

Purpose The COV-BARRIER Phase 3 trial demonstrated that treatment with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care significantly reduced mortality over 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 participants, with a similar safety profile to standard of care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib plus standard of care versus standard of care alone (which included systemic corticosteroids and remdesivir) in patients hospitalized in the United States with COVID-19. Methods An economic model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate the inpatient stay, discharge to post-acute care, and recovered patients. Costs modelled included payer costs, hospital costs, and indirect costs. Benefits modelled included life years, quality-adjusted life years, deaths avoided, and use of mechanical ventilation avoided. The primary analysis was performed from a payer perspective over a lifetime horizon; a secondary analysis was also performed from the hospital perspective. The base case analysis modelled the numerical differences in treatment effectiveness observed in the COV-BARRIER trial. Scenario analyses were also performed in which the clinical benefit of baricitinib was limited to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the trial. Findings In the base case payer perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib plus standard of care resulted in an incremental total cost of $17,276, a total quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.6703, and a total life-year gain of 0.837 compared with standard of care alone. The addition of baricitinib also increased survival by 5.1% and reduced the use of mechanical ventilation by 1.6%. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $25,774 per QALY gained and $20,638 per life year gained; the “mortality only” scenario analysis yielded similar results of $26,862 per QALY gained and $21,433 per life year gained. For the hospital perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib plus standard of care was more effective and less costly than standard of care alone in the base case, and it resulted in an incremental cost of $38,964 per death avoided in the “mortality only” scenario. Implications Our study showed that adding baricitinib to standard of care is cost effective for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. Cost effectiveness was demonstrated for both payer and hospital perspectives. These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses and to conservative assumptions limiting the clinical benefits of baricitinib to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the COV-BARRIER trial.