Cost effectiveness of commercial portable ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume US lung transplant center.

BACKGROUND: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion during lung transplantation is a resource-intensive technology. In light of its increasing use, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume lung transplant center in the USA. METHODS: Patients listed for lung transplantation (2015-2021) in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Quality-of-life was approximated by Karnofsky Performance Status scores 1-year post-transplant. Total transplantation encounter and 1-year follow-up costs accrued by our academic center for patients listed from 2018 to 2021 were obtained. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by evaluating the number of patients attaining various Karnofsky scores relative to cost. RESULTS: Of the 13 930 adult patients who underwent lung transplant in the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 13 477 (96.7%) used static cold storage and 453 (3.3%) used ex vivo lung perfusion, compared to 30/58 (51.7%) and 28/58 (48.3%), respectively, at our center. Compared to static cold storage, median total costs at 1 year were higher for ex vivo lung perfusion ($918 000 vs. $516 000; p = 0.007) along with the cost of living 1 year with a Karnofsky functional status of 100 after transplant ($1 290 000 vs. $841 000). In simulated scenarios, each Karnofsky-adjusted life year gained by ex vivo lung perfusion was 1.00-1.72 times more expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion is not currently cost-effective at a low-volume transplant centers in the USA, being 1.53 times more expensive per Karnofsky-adjusted life year. Improving donor lung and/or recipient biology during ex vivo lung perfusion may improve its utility for routine transplantation.

Health Economic Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Using a Diagnostic Blood Test: The Early Detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS).

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic blood tests have the potential to identify lung cancer in people at high risk. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening intervention, using the EarlyCDT®-Lung Test (ECLS) with subsequent X-ray and low-dose chest CT scans (LDCT) for patients with a positive test result, compared to both usual care and LDCT screening for the target population. METHODS: We conducted a model-based lifetime analysis from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective. We estimated incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) for the ECLS intervention compared to no screening and to LDCT screening. RESULTS: The incremental NMB of ECLS intervention compared to no screening was GBP 33,179 (95% CI: -GBP 81,396, GBP 147,180) and GBP 140,609 (95% CI: -GBP 36,255, GBP 316,612), respectively, for a cost-effectiveness threshold of GBP 20,000 and GBP 30,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The same figures compared with LDCT screening were GBP 162,095 (95% CI: GBP 52,698, GBP 271,735) and GBP 52,185 (95% CI: -GBP 115,152, GBP 219,711). CONCLUSIONS: The ECLS intervention is the most cost-effective screening alternative, with the highest probability of being cost-effective, when compared to no screening or LDCT screening. This result may change with modifications of the parameters, suggesting that the three alternatives considered in the main analysis are potentially cost-effective.

Bisoprolol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at High Risk of Exacerbation: The BICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that ß-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P = .96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306.

Behavioural activation for depressive symptoms in adults with severe to profound intellectual disabilities: Modelling and initial feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Almost no research has been published reporting on evaluations of the effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with severe to profound intellectual disabilities and depression. This paper describes the development and initial feasibility testing of an adapted Behavioural Activation therapy (BeatIt2) for this population. METHOD: Phase 1 of the study examined participant recruitment and willingness to be randomised in the context of a planned Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Phase 2 examined the feasibility of delivering the intervention. RESULTS: Twenty adults with a severe or profound intellectual disability and clinically significant depression were recruited to Phase 1 of the study. In Phase 2, there was 100% participant retention for those recruited to the study at 6-month follow-up. The BeatIt2 therapy was reported to be acceptable for participants. CONCLUSION: COVID disruption meant that it was not possible to complete the planned feasibility RCT. The positive findings suggest that additional evaluation of BeatIt2 is warranted.