Paravertebral versus EPidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophageal ResectioN (PEPMEN): A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of recovery in patients receiving epidural or paravertebral analgesia for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Paravertebral analgesia may be a promising alternative to epidural analgesia, avoiding potential side effects and improving postoperative recovery. METHODS: This randomized controlled superiority trial was conducted across four Dutch centers with esophageal cancer patients scheduled for transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic anastomosis, randomizing patients to receive either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery (QoR-40) on the third postoperative day (POD). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, postoperative pain, opioid consumption, inotropic/vasopressor medication use, hospital stay, complications, readmission, and mortality. RESULTS: From December 2019 to February 2023, 192 patients were included: 94 received epidural and 98 paravertebral analgesia. QoR-40 score on POD3 was not different between groups (mean difference 3.7, 95%CI -2.3 to 9.7; P=0.268). Epidural patients had significant higher QoR-40 scores on POD1 and 2 (mean difference 7.7, 95%CI 2.3-13.1; P=0.018 and mean difference 7.3, 95%CI 1.9-12.7; P=0.020) and lower pain scores (median 1 versus 2; P=<0.001 and median 1 versus 2; P=0.033). More epidural patients required vasopressor medication on POD1 (38.3% versus 13.3%; P<0.001). Urinary catheters were removed earlier in the paravertebral group (median POD3 versus 4; P=<0.001). No significant differences were found in postoperative complications or hospital/Intensive Care Unit stay. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial did not demonstrate superiority of paravertebral over epidural analgesia regarding quality of recovery on POD3 after MIE. Both techniques are effective and can be offered in clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of continuous pulse oximetry for management of undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea in bariatric surgery: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Undetected obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent in patients undergoing bariatric surgery and increases perioperative risks. Screening for OSA using preoperative polygraphy (PG) with subsequent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is costly and time-consuming. Postoperative continuous pulse oximetry (CPOX) is less invasive, and is hypothesized to be a safe and cost-effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: This nationwide multicenter prospective observational cohort study compared CPOX monitoring with OSA-screening using PG. SETTING: High-volume bariatric centers. METHODS: Patients were either postoperatively monitored using CPOX without preoperative OSA-screening, or underwent preoperative PG and CPAP treatment when OSA was diagnosed. Cohort placement was based on local hospital protocols. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs. Surgical outcomes were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was used in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1390 patients were included. QALYs were similar between groups at baseline and 1-year postoperatively. Postoperative complications, intensive care unit (ICU)-admissions and admissions, particularly OSA-related, did not differ between groups. Mean costs per patient/year in the CPOX group was €3094 versus €3680 in the PG group; mean difference €-586 (95% CI €-933-€-242). Following propensity score matching, 1090 of 1390 included patients remained, and similar findings for cost-effectiveness, complications, and ICU admissions were observed. CONCLUSION: CPOX monitoring without preoperative OSA-screening was not associated with higher complication or readmission rates compared to PG. CPOX resulted in lower costs from a healthcare perspective and can therefore be considered a cost-effective alternative to routine OSA-screening in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

A cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants for single sided deafness in adults and children in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cochlear Implant (CI) has been shown to improve speech comprehension, sound localization and tinnitus in adults with Single-Sided-Deafness (SSD) compared to standard treatment currently available in the Dutch setting such as a CROS (Contralateral Routing of Signals) hearing device or a BCD (Bone Conduction Device). Also, for the pediatric population with SSD, CI has shown to be clinically meaningful. Because currently no information is available on the health economic effects of CI in adults and children with SSD in the Netherlands, a cost-utility analysis was conducted. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model, for both the adult and pediatric SSD population, with three states: implant, no implant, and dead. CI was compared with the Bone Conduction Device (BCD) treatment, requiring surgery and no specific treatment. The time horizon of the model was lifelong, costs were discounted with 3% and effects with 1.5%. A societal perspective was taken, including productivity costs in the analysis, with costing data based on publicly available prices for the Netherlands. Values for clinical outcome parameters, i.e. hearing gain, and event probabilities were based on existing literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as scenario analyses were performed to outline uncertainty of individual and combined parameters. RESULTS: Mean per patient costs for CI in the adult population were €194,051 (95%-CrI €177,274 to €211,108) compared to the total costs of €185,310 (95%-CrI €182,367 to €194,142) for BCD resulting in a cost difference of €8,826 (95%-CrI -€5,020 to €18,252). Compared to no treatment, the cost difference was -€25,089 (95%-CrI -€31,678 to -€6,003). Adults who were treated with CI gained 18.41 (95%-CrI 18.07 to 18.75) quality adjusted life years (QALY) whereas BCD patients gained 15.81 QALYs (95%-CrI 15.53 to 16.10), a difference of 2.60 QALYs (95%-CrI 2.15 to 3.05). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for adults with CI was determined to be €3,494/QALY gained. Patient without treatment gained 13.46 QALY (95%-CrI 13.20 to 13.73), a difference of 4.95 (95%-CrI 4.87 to 5.01) resulting in CI dominating no treatment. The ICER remained below the Dutch threshold of €20,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. For children, CI dominated when compared to BCD and when compared to no treatment. Compared to BCD, CI led to a cost saving of €29,611 (95%-CrI -€126,800 to €54,375) and compared to no treatment, CI resulted in a cost saving of €57,658 (95%-CrI -€146,687 to €5,919). The incremental QALY gain compared to BCD was 7.22 (95%-CrI 4.19 to 8.55) and 26.03 (95%-CrI 20.82 to 31.06) compared to no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this health economic evaluation with a Markov cohort model, it is very likely that CI is cost-effective compared to BCD and to no treatment in the Dutch adult and pediatric population with SSD. In both populations the ICER was below the Dutch cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/QALY.

Healthcare costs related to respiratory syncytial virus in paediatric intensive care units in the Netherlands: a nationwide prospective observational study (the BRICK study).

Background: The implementation of the approved respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive interventions in immunisation programmes is advancing rapidly. Insight into healthcare costs of RSV-related paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions is lacking, but of great importance to evaluate the impact of implementation. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the total annual RSV-related paediatric intensive care healthcare costs in the Netherlands. Methods: A nationwide prospective, observational, multicenter study was performed from September 2021 until June 2023. The total annual RSV-related healthcare costs on PICUs in the Netherlands were calculated using RSV-related costs (subgroup I) and consequential costs (subgroup II and III). Subgroup I comprised all PICU admitted infants ≤12 months of age with laboratory-confirmed RSV infection. Subgroup II and III consisted of postponed elective PICU admissions and refused acute PICU admissions due to RSV-related lack of PICU capacity. Findings: A total of 424 infants with RSV-related PICU admission were included. Median age at PICU admission was 46 days (IQR 25-89). The median length of PICU admission was 5 days (IQR 3-8). The total RSV-related PICU costs are € 3,826,386 in 2021-2022, and € 3,183,888 in 2022-2023. Potential costs averted by RSV preventive interventions is € 1.9 to € 2.6 million depending on season, and the duration of protection. Interpretation: RSV-related PICU admissions cost €3.1 to €3.8 million in the Netherlands during one season. The introduction of new RSV preventive interventions into the Dutch immunisation programme will generate significant cost-savings on PICUs and decreases the admission burden of PICUs. Funding: None.

Toward a Useful and Cost-Effective Workup in Chronic Polyneuropathy: The EXPRESS Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge gaps exist about the usefulness and extent of blood tests and nerve conduction studies in the workup of polyneuropathy. We hypothesize that a limited workup improves costs spent on diagnostics without loss of diagnostic reliability or disadvantageous effect on treatment choice in many patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic polyneuropathy. We aim to determine which investigations are necessary in the workup of patients with suspected chronic polyneuropathy clinically diagnosed by neurologists in an outpatient clinic and will perform an early health technology assessment. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter quality in healthcare evaluation. We compare two diagnostic strategies, both performed on all participants: the standard care by each patient's neurologist and the proposed (limited) workup by the study panel members consisting of neurologists with experience in neuromuscular diseases. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the effectiveness of a limited workup expressed as concordance between the patient's neurologist diagnosis and the panel diagnosis. This will be related to differences in costs and impact on treatment or patient management otherwise. Other outcomes are burden/gain for the patient in terms of number of investigations, time to diagnosis, hospital visits, sick leave, loss of productivity, expenses, experienced quality of care. CONCLUSION: This multicenter prospective observational study on quality in health care will provide improved evidence about the components of a cost-effective workup for patients with chronic polyneuropathy.

Paving the path for implementation of clinical genomic sequencing globally: Are we ready?

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.

A Blueprint for Multi-use Disease Modeling in Health Economics: Results from Two Expert-Panel Consultations.

BACKGROUND: The current use of health economic decision models in HTA is mostly confined to single use cases, which may be inefficient and result in little consistency over different treatment comparisons, and consequently inconsistent health policy decisions, for the same disorder. Multi-use disease models (MUDMs) (other terms: generic models, whole disease models, disease models) may offer a solution. However, much is uncertain about their definition and application. The current research aimed to develop a blueprint for the application of MUDMs. METHODS: We elicited expert opinion using a two-round modified Delphi process. The panel consisted of experts and stakeholders in health economic modelling from various professional backgrounds. The first questionnaire concerned definition, terminology, potential applications, issues and recommendations for MUDMs and was based on an exploratory scoping review. In the second round, the panel members were asked to reconsider their input, based on feedback regarding first-round results, and to score issues and recommendations for priority. Finally, adding input from external advisors and policy makers in a structured way, an overview of issues and challenges was developed during two team consensus meetings. RESULTS: In total, 54 respondents contributed to the panel results. The term 'multi-use disease models' was proposed and agreed upon, and a definition was provided. The panel prioritized 10 potential applications (with comparing alternative policies and supporting resource allocation decisions as the top 2), while 20 issues (with model transparency and stakeholders' roles as the top 2) were identified as challenges. Opinions on potential features concerning operationalization of multi-use models were given, with 11 of these subsequently receiving high priority scores (regular updates and revalidation after updates were the top 2). CONCLUSIONS: MUDMs would improve on current decision support regarding cost-effectiveness information. Given feasibility challenges, this would be most relevant for diseases with multiple treatments, large burden of disease and requiring more complex models. The current overview offers policy makers a starting point to organize the development, use, and maintenance of MUDMs and to support choices concerning which diseases and policy decisions they will be helpful for.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine in patients with chronic coronary disease in the netherlands.

AIMS: Recent trials have shown that low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) reduces major cardiovascular events in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine therapy in patients with chronic coronary disease when added to standard background therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: This Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model used estimates of therapy effectiveness, transition probabilities, costs and quality of life obtained from the Low-dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial, as well as meta-analyses and public sources. In this trial, Low-dose colchicine was added to standard of care and compared to placebo. The main outcomes were cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke and coronary revascularisation, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), the cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), and net monetary benefit. In the model, low-dose colchicine therapy yielded 0.04 additional QALYs compared with standard of care at an incremental cost of €455 from a societal perspective and €729 from a healthcare perspective, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of €12,176/QALY from a societal perspective and €19,499/QALY from a healthcare perspective. Net monetary benefit was €1,414 from a societal perspective and €1,140 from a healthcare perspective. Low-dose colchicine has a 96% and 94% chance of being cost effective, from respectively a societal and healthcare perspective when using a willingness to pay of €50,000/QALY. Net monetary benefit would decrease below zero when annual low-dose colchicine costs would exceed an annual cost of €221 per patient. CONCLUSION: Adding low-dose colchicine to standard of care in patients with chronic coronary disease is cost-effective according to commonly accepted thresholds in Europe and Australia and compares favourably in cost-effectiveness to other drugs used in chronic coronary disease.

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026).

RELEASE-HF study: a protocol for an observational, registry-based study on the effectiveness of telemedicine in heart failure in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-analyses show postive effects of telemedicine in heart failure (HF) management on hospitalisation, mortality and costs. However, these effects are heterogeneous due to variation in the included HF population, the telemedicine components and the quality of the comparator usual care. Still, telemedicine is gaining acceptance in HF management. The current nationwide study aims to identify (1) in which subgroup(s) of patients with HF telemedicine is (cost-)effective and (2) which components of telemedicine are most (cost-)effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The RELEASE-HF ('REsponsible roLl-out of E-heAlth through Systematic Evaluation - Heart Failure') study is a multicentre, observational, registry-based cohort study that plans to enrol 6480 patients with HF using data from the HF registry facilitated by the Netherlands Heart Registration. Collected data include patient characteristics, treatment information and clinical outcomes, and are measured at HF diagnosis and at 6 and 12 months afterwards. The components of telemedicine are described at the hospital level based on closed-ended interviews with clinicians and at the patient level based on additional data extracted from electronic health records and telemedicine-generated data. The costs of telemedicine are calculated using registration data and interviews with clinicians and finance department staff. To overcome missing data, additional national databases will be linked to the HF registry if feasible. Heterogeneity of the effects of offering telemedicine compared with not offering on days alive without unplanned hospitalisations in 1 year is assessed across predefined patient characteristics using exploratory stratified analyses. The effects of telemedicine components are assessed by fitting separate models for component contrasts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee 2021 of the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. Effective telemedicine scenarios will be proposed among hospitals throughout the country and abroad, if applicable and feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05654961.

Prophylactic pectoralis major flap to compensate for increased risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula in laryngectomy patients with low skeletal muscle mass (PECTORALIS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Total laryngectomy (TL) is a surgical procedure commonly performed on patients with advanced laryngeal or hypopharyngeal carcinoma. One of the most common postoperative complications following TL is the development of a pharyngocutaneous fistula (PCF), characterized by a communication between the neopharynx and the skin. PCF can lead to extended hospital stays, delayed oral feeding, and compromised quality of life. The use of a myofascial pectoralis major flap (PMMF) as an onlay technique during pharyngeal closure has shown potential in reducing PCF rates in high risk patients for development of PCF such as patients undergoing TL after chemoradiation and low skeletal muscle mass (SMM). Its impact on various functional outcomes, such as shoulder and neck function, swallowing function, and voice quality, remains less explored. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of PMMF in reducing PCF rates in patients with low SMM and its potential consequences on patient well-being. METHODS: This multicenter study adopts a randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and is funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Eligible patients for TL, aged ≥ 18 years, mentally competent, and proficient in Dutch, will be enrolled. One hundred and twenty eight patients with low SMM will be centrally randomized to receive TL with or without PMMF, while those without low SMM will undergo standard TL. Primary outcome measurement involves assessing PCF rates within 30 days post-TL. Secondary objectives include evaluating quality of life, shoulder and neck function, swallowing function, and voice quality using standardized questionnaires and functional tests. Data will be collected through electronic patient records. DISCUSSION: This study's significance lies in its exploration of the potential benefits of using PMMF as an onlay technique during pharyngeal closure to reduce PCF rates in TL patients with low SMM. By assessing various functional outcomes, the study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of PMMF deployment. The anticipated results will contribute valuable insights into optimizing surgical techniques to enhance patient outcomes and inform future treatment strategies for TL patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL8605, registered on 11-05-2020; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

Low dose cisplatin weekly versus high dose cisplatin every three weeks in primary chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients with low skeletal muscle mass: The CISLOW-study protocol.

Chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin in a triweekly regimen of 100 mg/m2 body surface area, is used to treat locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with curative intent. Cisplatin dose limiting toxicity (CDLT) occurs often and impedes obtaining the planned cumulative cisplatin dose. A cumulative cisplatin dose of 200 mg/m2 or more is warranted for better survival and locoregional control. Patients with a low skeletal muscle mass (SMM) have a three-fold higher risk of developing CDLT than patients with a normal SMM. SMM can be assessed through measurements on routinely performed diagnostic head and neck CT- or MRI-scans. A weekly regimen of 40 mg/m2 body surface area cisplatin is proposed as a less toxic schedule, which possibly decreases the risk of developing CDLT and enables reaching a higher cumulative cisplatin dose. The aim of this multicenter randomized clinical trial (NL76533.041.21, registered in the Netherlands Trial Register) is to identify whether a regimen of weekly cisplatin increases compliance to the planned chemotherapy scheme in HNSCC patients with low SMM. The primary outcome is the difference in compliance rate, defined as absence of CDLT, between low SMM patients receiving either the weekly or triweekly regimen. Secondary outcomes consist of toxicities, the cumulative cisplatin dose, time to recurrence, incidence of recurrence at two years of follow-up, location of recurrence, 2-year overall, disease free and disease specific survival, quality of life, patient's experiences, and cost-effectiveness.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (ENDURO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs. METHODS: The ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs. DISCUSSION: The ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): NL9592. Registered on 07 July 2021.

Dual hormone fully closed loop in type 1 diabetes: a randomised trial in the Netherlands - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The management of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) has undergone significant advancements with the availability of novel technologies, notably continuous and flash glucose monitoring (CGM and FGM, respectively) and hybrid closed loop (HCL) therapy. The dual hormone fully closed loop (DHFCL) approach with insulin and glucagon infusion has shown promising effects in small studies on glycaemic regulation and quality of life in T1DM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Dual Hormone Fully Closed Loop for Type 1 Diabetes (DARE) study is a non-commercial 12-month open-label, two-arm randomised parallel-group trial. The primary aim of this study is to determine the long-term effects on glycaemic control, patient-reported outcome measurements and cost-effectiveness of the DHFCL compared with usual care, that is, HCL or treatment with multiple daily insulin injections+FGM/CGM. We will include 240 adult patients with T1DM in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Individuals will be randomised 1:1 to the DHFCL or continuation of their current care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee NedMec, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at local, national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05669547.

Managing the Increasing Burden of Atrial Fibrillation through Integrated Care in Primary Care: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Introduction: Integrated care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care reduced mortality compared to usual care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach. Methods: Dutch primary care practices were randomised to provide integrated care for AF patients or usual care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon to estimate incremental costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis was performed, imputing missing questionnaires for a large group of usual care patients. Results: 522 patients from 15 intervention practices were compared to 425 patients from 11 usual care practices. No effect on QALYs was seen, while mean costs indicated a cost reduction between €865 (95% percentile interval (PI) -€5730 to €3641) and €1343 (95% PI -€6534 to €3109) per patient per 2 years. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged between 36% and 54%. In the sensitivity analysis, this increased to 95%-99%. Discussion: Results should be interpreted with caution due to missing information for a large proportion of usual care patients. Conclusion: The higher costs from extra primary care consultations were likely outweighed by cost reductions for other resources, yet this study doesn't give sufficient clarity on the cost-effectiveness of integrated AF care.

Rapid exome sequencing as a first-tier test in neonates with suspected genetic disorder: results of a prospective multicenter clinical utility study in the Netherlands.

The introduction of rapid exome sequencing (rES) for critically ill neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit has made it possible to impact clinical decision-making. Unbiased prospective studies to quantify the impact of rES over routine genetic testing are, however, scarce. We performed a clinical utility study to compare rES to conventional genetic diagnostic workup for critically ill neonates with suspected genetic disorders. In a multicenter prospective parallel cohort study involving five Dutch NICUs, we performed rES in parallel to routine genetic testing for 60 neonates with a suspected genetic disorder and monitored diagnostic yield and the time to diagnosis. To assess the economic impact of rES, healthcare resource use was collected for all neonates. rES detected more conclusive genetic diagnoses than routine genetic testing (20% vs. 10%, respectively), in a significantly shorter time to diagnosis (15 days (95% CI 10-20) vs. 59 days (95% CI 23-98, p < 0.001)). Moreover, rES reduced genetic diagnostic costs by 1.5% (€85 per neonate). CONCLUSION:  Our findings demonstrate the clinical utility of rES for critically ill neonates based on increased diagnostic yield, shorter time to diagnosis, and net healthcare savings. Our observations warrant the widespread implementation of rES as first-tier genetic test in critically ill neonates with disorders of suspected genetic origin. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Rapid exome sequencing (rES) enables diagnosing rare genetic disorders in a fast and reliable manner, but retrospective studies with neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) indicated that genetic disorders are likely underdiagnosed as rES is not routinely used. • Scenario modeling for implementation of rES for neonates with presumed genetic disorders indicated an expected increase in costs associated with genetic testing. WHAT IS NEW: • This unique prospective national clinical utility study of rES in a NICU setting shows that rES obtained more and faster diagnoses than conventional genetic tests. • Implementation of rES as replacement for all other genetic tests does not increase healthcare costs but in fact leads to a reduction in healthcare costs.

Home telemonitoring versus hospital care in complicated pregnancies in the Netherlands: a randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial (HoTeL).

BACKGROUND: Women with complicated pregnancies often require hospital admission. Telemonitoring at home is a promising alternative that fulfils a worldwide need in obstetric health care. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the transformation to digital care. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and costs of home telemonitoring against hospital care in complicated pregnancies. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in six hospitals (four general teaching hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands (located in Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Groningen). Women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies (>26 weeks gestation) requiring monitoring for pre-eclampsia, fetal growth restriction, fetal anomaly, preterm rupture of membranes, reduced fetal movements, or history of fetal death were included in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either hospital admission or telemonitoring in (1:1), stratified for the six diagnoses for inclusion and the six centres of inclusion, using block randomisation (block sizes of four and six). When assigned to telemonitoring, participants went home with devices for cardiotocography and blood pressure measurements and had daily contact with their care providers after digitally sending their home measurements. When assigned to hospital admission, participants received care as usual on the ward until the postpartum period. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes assessed after delivery, including mortality; an Apgar score below 7 after 5 min or an umbilical arterial pH at birth below 7·05; maternal morbidity; admission of the newborn to the neonatal intensive care unit; and rate of caesarean section. The primary outcome was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin for the primary outcome was a 10% absolute increase in composite primary endpoint based on baseline 20% incidence. The study was registered at the Dutch Trial Registration (NL5888) and is now closed to new participants. FINDINGS: From Dec 1, 2016, to Nov 30, 2019, 201 pregnant women were randomly assigned to an intervention procedure. 101 women were allocated to the telemonitoring group and 100 to the hospital admission group. One participant in the telemonitoring group withdrew consent before the intervention was initiated, and 100 participants were analysed for the primary outcome. In the hospital admission group, four participants did not receive the allocated intervention because they did not accept hospital admission. 100 participants in each group were analysed for the primary outcome according to the intention-to-treat principal. No participants were lost to follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 31 (31%) of 100 participants in the telemonitoring group and in 40 (40%) of 100 participants in the hospital admission group. Adjusted for centre of inclusion, diagnosis, and nulliparity, the risk difference in primary outcome between both groups was 10·3% (95% CI -22·4 to 2·2) lower in the telemonitoring group, below the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 10% absolute increase. A similar distribution for each of the individual components within the composite primary outcome was seen between groups. Five serious adverse events were reported: one neonatal death in the hospital admission group, in addition to one intra-uterine fetal death, two neonatal deaths, and one case of eclampsia in the telemonitoring group, all unrelated to the study. INTERPRETATION: This non-inferiority trial shows the first evidence that telemonitoring might be as safe as hospital admission for monitoring complicated pregnancies. FUNDING: Stichting Achmea Gezondheidszorg and ICT Healthcare Technology Solutions.

Toward Transplantation of Liver Organoids: From Biology and Ethics to Cost-effective Therapy.

Liver disease is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, and many patients would benefit from liver transplantation. However, because of a shortage of suitable donor livers, even of those patients who are placed on the donor liver waiting list, many do not survive the waiting time for transplantation. Therefore, alternative treatments for end-stage liver disease need to be explored. Recent advances in organoid technology might serve as a solution to overcome the donor liver shortage in the future. In this overview, we highlight the potential of organoid technology for cell therapy and tissue engineering approaches. Both organoid-based approaches could be used as treatment for end-stage liver disease patients. Additionally, organoid-based cell therapy can also be used to repair liver grafts ex vivo to increase the supply of transplantable liver tissue. The potential of both approaches to become clinically available is carefully assessed, including their clinical, ethical, and economic implications. We provide insight into what aspects should be considered further to allow alternatives to donor liver transplantation to be successfully clinically implemented.

Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. Interventions: Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be €8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, €7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, €6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and €5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were €26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and €25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, €752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy.