Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.

Background: Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from an antenatal or newborn screening programme, driven by multiple benefits and harms, are justifiable. It is not known what benefits and harms have been adopted by economic evaluations assessing these programmes and whether they omit benefits and harms considered important to relevant stakeholders. Objectives: (1) To identify the benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments in this area, and to assess how they have been measured and valued; (2) to identify attributes or relevance to stakeholders that ought to be considered in future economic assessments; and (3) to make recommendations about the benefits and harms that should be considered by these studies. Design: Mixed methods combining systematic review and qualitative work. Systematic review methods: We searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021 using all major electronic databases. Economic evaluations of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in one or more Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were considered eligible. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis and constructed a thematic framework. Qualitative methods: We conducted a meta-ethnography of the existing literature on newborn screening experiences, a secondary analysis of existing individual interviews related to antenatal or newborn screening or living with screened-for conditions, and a thematic analysis of primary data collected with stakeholders about their experiences with screening. Results: The literature searches identified 52,244 articles and reports, and 336 unique studies were included. Thematic framework resulted in seven themes: (1) diagnosis of screened for condition, (2) life-years and health status adjustments, (3) treatment, (4) long-term costs, (5) overdiagnosis, (6) pregnancy loss and (7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened-for condition (115, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90, 37.2%) and treatment (88, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Long-term costs, overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. The wide-reaching family implications of screening were considered important to stakeholders. We observed good overlap between the thematic framework and the qualitative evidence. Limitations: Dual data extraction within the systematic literature review was not feasible due to the large number of studies included. It was difficult to recruit healthcare professionals in the stakeholder's interviews. Conclusions: There is no consistency in the selection of benefits and harms used in health economic assessments in this area, suggesting that additional methods guidance is needed. Our proposed thematic framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165236. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127489) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Every year the NHS offers pregnant women screening tests to assess the chances of them or their unborn baby having or developing a health condition. It also offers screening tests for newborn babies to look for a range of health conditions. The implementation of screening programmes and the care for women and babies require many resources and funding for the NHS, so it is important that screening programmes represent good value for money. This means that the amount of money the NHS spends on a programme is justified by the amount of benefit that the programme gives. We wanted to see whether researchers consider all the important benefits and harms associated with screening of pregnant women and newborn babies when calculating value for money. To do this, we searched all studies available in developed countries to identify what benefits and harms they considered. We also considered the views of parents and healthcare professionals on the benefits and harms screening that creates for families and wider society. We found that the identification of benefits and harms of screening is complex because screening results affect a range of people (mother­baby, parents, extended family and wider society). Researchers calculating the value for money of screening programmes have, to date, concentrated on a narrow range of benefits and harms and ignored many factors that are important to people affected by screening results. From our discussions with parents and healthcare professionals, we found that wider impacts on families are an important consideration. Only one study we looked at considered wider impacts on families. Our work also found that parent's ability to recognise, absorb and apply new information to understand their child's screening results or condition is important. Healthcare professionals involve in screening should consider this when supporting families of children with a condition. We have created a list for researchers to identify the benefits and harms that are important to include in future studies. We have also identified different ways researchers can value these benefits and harms, so they are incorporated into their studies in a meaningful way.

Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain and its association with mortality in newly diagnosed co-morbid conditions: an electronic health record cohort study.

Objective: Musculoskeletal pain is a common risk factor for co-morbid conditions and might increase the risk of poor outcomes. The objective was to determine whether patients with pre-existing musculoskeletal pain have an increased risk for mortality following a new diagnosis of a co-morbid condition. Methods: Patients aged ≥45 years with a new diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, cancer, dementia or pneumonia recorded in a UK electronic primary care database linked to hospital and mortality records were examined. The association of mortality with musculoskeletal pain (inflammatory conditions, OA and regional pain) was determined. Results: The sample size varied from 128 649 (stroke) to 406 289 (cancer) by cohort, with 22-31% having pre-existing musculoskeletal conditions. In the ACS cohort, there was a higher rate of mortality for all musculoskeletal types. There were also higher unadjusted mortality rates in patients with inflammatory arthritis compared with those without musculoskeletal pain in the stroke, cancer and dementia cohorts and for patients with OA in the stroke and cancer cohorts. After adjustment for the number of prescribed medications and age, the increased risk of mortality remained only for patients with inflammatory arthritis in the ACS cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.07; 95% CI 1.03, 1.10). Conclusion: Older adults with inflammatory arthritis and OA have increased risk of mortality when they develop a new condition, which seems to be related to the prescription of multiple medicines. Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain is an indicator of a complex patient who is at risk of poorer outcomes at the onset of new illnesses.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Pain with neuropathic characteristics after surgically treated lower limb fractures: Cost analysis and pain medication use.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is prevalent among people after lower limb fracture surgery and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disability. This study estimates the financial cost and pain medication use associated with neuropathic pain in this group. Methods: A secondary analysis using pain data collected over six postoperative months from participants randomised in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) trial. Pain states were classified as pain-free, chronic non-neuropathic pain (NNP) or chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Cost associated with each pain state from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective were estimated by multivariate models based on multiple imputed data. Pain medication usage was analysed by pain state. Results: A total of 934 participants who provided either 3- or 6-months pain data were included. Compared to participants with NP, those with NNP (adjusted mean difference -£730, p = 0.38, 95% CI -2368 to 908) or were pain-free (adjusted mean difference -£716, p = 0.53, 95% CI -2929 to 1497) had lower costs from the NHS and PSS perspective in the first three postoperative months. Over the first three postoperative months, almost a third of participants with NP were prescribed opioids and 8% were prescribed NP medications. Similar trends were observed by 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion: This study found healthcare costs were higher amongst those with chronic NP compared to those who were pain-free or had chronic NNP. Opioids, rather than neuropathic pain medications, were commonly prescribed for NP over the first six postoperative months, contrary to clinical guidelines.