Software using artificial intelligence for nodule and cancer detection in CT lung cancer screening: systematic review of test accuracy studies.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the accuracy and impact of artificial intelligence (AI) software assistance in lung cancer screening using CT. METHODS: A systematic review of CE-marked, AI-based software for automated detection and analysis of nodules in CT lung cancer screening was conducted. Multiple databases including Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 2012 to March 2023. Primary research reporting test accuracy or impact on reading time or clinical management was included. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to assess risk of bias. We undertook narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Eleven studies evaluating six different AI-based software and reporting on 19 770 patients were eligible. All were at high risk of bias with multiple applicability concerns. Compared with unaided reading, AI-assisted reading was faster and generally improved sensitivity (+5% to +20% for detecting/categorising actionable nodules; +3% to +15% for detecting/categorising malignant nodules), with lower specificity (-7% to -3% for correctly detecting/categorising people without actionable nodules; -8% to -6% for correctly detecting/categorising people without malignant nodules). AI assistance tended to increase the proportion of nodules allocated to higher risk categories. Assuming 0.5% cancer prevalence, these results would translate into additional 150-750 cancers detected per million people attending screening but lead to an additional 59 700 to 79 600 people attending screening without cancer receiving unnecessary CT surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: AI assistance in lung cancer screening may improve sensitivity but increases the number of false-positive results and unnecessary surveillance. Future research needs to increase the specificity of AI-assisted reading and minimise risk of bias and applicability concerns through improved study design. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021298449.

Is the assumption of waning of treatment effect applied consistently across NICE technology appraisals? A case-study focusing on disease-modifying therapies for treatment of multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Whether the effects of therapies may wane over time is a matter of debate, especially when considering their long-term cost-effectiveness. Here, we examined how the assumption of the waning of treatment effect was applied across the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisals for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) used in multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We undertook a document analysis following a search of the NICE website. The inclusion criteria of the study were as follows: all publicly available documents related to completed appraisals for DMTs (period: January 2000 to July 2021). The exclusion criteria of the study were as follows: all documents that did not meet the inclusion criteria, especially pertaining to drugs used in other disease areas. We extracted information about the waning of treatment effect assumption as considered by companies, assessment groups, and appraisal committees, and we analyzed trends over time. RESULTS: We reviewed fifteen appraisals that reported guidance on sixteen DMTs. Irrespective of the drugs' mechanism of action or their pharmaceutical nature, there was substantial variation in the modalities when the assumption of waning was implemented. We noted the recent preference to use all-cause discontinuation as a proxy. This heterogeneity did not appear to affect acceptance of the DMTs (all but one were recommended for use across the National Health System (NHS)). CONCLUSIONS: Modeling the long-term effect of therapies is challenging, especially given the limited follow-up duration of related trials. This generates recurrent debates on the presence of waning of treatment efficacy and heterogeneity across appraisals. More refined recommendations obtained by consensus among stakeholders could help to achieve greater consistency in decision making.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields added to maintenance temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: an updated evaluation using a partitioned survival model.

PURPOSE: A first cost-effectiveness analysis has raised a strong concern regarding the cost of tumor treatment fields (TTF) added to maintenance temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma. This evaluation was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial, moreover it used a "standard" Markov model. Our objective was to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using the more flexible potential of the "partitioned survival" model design and using the latest effectiveness data. METHODS: We developed the model with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Good fit parametric models were developed for overall survival and progression free survival and these generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. We adopted the perspective of the French national health insurance and used a 20-year time horizon. Results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). RESULTS: The base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.604 LY at a cost of €453,848 which, after 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, yielded an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273/LYG. Using sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods results were found to be relatively robust and were only sensitive to TTF device costs and the modelling of overall survival. To achieve an ICER below €100,000/LYG would require a reduction in TTF device cost of approximately 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a different type of model and updated survival outcomes, our results show TTF remains an intervention that is not cost-effective, which greatly restrains its diffusion to potentially eligible patients.

How Do Pharmaceutical Companies Model Survival of Cancer Patients? A Review of NICE Single Technology Appraisals in 2017.

OBJECTIVES: Before an intervention is publicly funded within the United Kingdom, the cost-effectiveness is assessed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The efficacy of an intervention across the patients' lifetime is often influential of the cost-effectiveness analyses, but is associated with large uncertainties. We reviewed committee documents containing company submissions and evidence review group (ERG) reports to establish the methods used when extrapolating survival data, whether these adhered to NICE Technical Support Document (TSD) 14, and how uncertainty was addressed. METHODS: A systematic search was completed on the NHS Evidence Search webpage limited to single technology appraisals of cancer interventions published in 2017, with information obtained from the NICE Web site. RESULTS: Twenty-eight appraisals were identified, covering twenty-two interventions across eighteen diseases. Every economic model used parametric curves to model survival. All submissions used goodness-of-fit statistics and plausibility of extrapolations when selecting a parametric curve. Twenty-five submissions considered alternate parametric curves in scenario analyses. Six submissions reported including the parameters of the survival curves in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. ERGs agreed with the company's choice of parametric curve in nine appraisals, and agreed with all major survival-related assumptions in two appraisals. CONCLUSIONS: TSD 14 on survival extrapolation was followed in all appraisals. Despite this, the choice of parametric curve remains subjective. Recent developments in Bayesian approaches to extrapolation are not implemented. More precise guidance on the selection of curves and modelling of uncertainty may reduce subjectivity, accelerating the appraisal process.

Comparative effectiveness of beta-interferons and glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis of trials including recommended dosages.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed the comparative effectiveness of injectable beta-interferons (IFN-ß) and glatiramer acetate (GA) on annualised relapse rate (ARR), progression and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) in RRMS, using evidence from within the drugs' recommended dosages. METHODS: We updated prior comprehensive reviews, checked references of included studies, contacted experts in the field, and screened websites for relevant publications to locate randomised trials of IFN-ß and GA with recommended dosages in RRMS populations, compared against placebo or other recommended dosages. Abstracts were screened and assessed for inclusion in duplicate and independently. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Rate ratios for ARR, hazard ratios for time to progression, and risk ratios for discontinuation due to AEs were synthesised in separate models using random effects network meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies reported in 42 publications. Most studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. All drugs had a beneficial effect on ARR as compared to placebo, but not compared to each other, and findings were robust to sensitivity analysis. We considered time to progression confirmed at 3 months and confirmed at 6 months in separate models; while both models suggested that the included drugs were effective, findings were not consistent between models. Discontinuation due to AEs did not appear to be different between drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses confirmed that IFN-ß and GA reduce ARR and generally delay progression as defined in these trials, though there was no clear 'winner' across outcomes. Findings are additionally tempered by the high risk of bias across studies, and the use of an impairment/mobility scale to measure disease progression. Future research should consider more relevant measures of disability and, given that most trials have been short-term, consider a longitudinal approach to comparative effectiveness. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016043278 .

Comparing interferon-gamma release assays with tuberculin skin test for identifying latent tuberculosis infection that progresses to active tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely and accurate identification of people with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is important for controlling Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB). There is no gold standard for diagnosis of LTBI. Screening tests such as interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) and tuberculin skin test (TST) provide indirect and imperfect information. This systematic review compared two types of IGRAs QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB with TST for identification of LTBI by predicting progression to a diagnosis of active TB in three subgroups: children, immunocompromised people, and those recently arrived from countries with high TB burden. METHODS: Cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and other databases from December 2009 to June 2015. One reviewer screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias with cross checking by a second reviewer. Strength of association between test results and incidence of TB was summarised using cumulative incidence ratios (CIRs with 95% CIs). Summary effect measures: the ratio of CIRs (R-CIR) with 95% CIs. R-CIRs, were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Chi-squared and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, mostly of moderate or high risk of bias (five in children, 10 in immunocompromised people, and two in those recently arrived) were included. In children, while in two studies, there was no significant difference between QFT-GIT and TST (≥5 mm) (pooled R-CIR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.74), two other studies showed QFT-GIT to outperform TST (≥10 mm) in identifying LTBI. In immunocompromised people, IGRA (T-SPOT.TB) was not significant different from TST (≥10 mm) for identifying LTBI, (pooled R-CIR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.58). The forest plot of two studies in recently arrived people from countries with high TB burden demonstrated inconsistent findings (high heterogeneity; I2 = 92%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies comparing IGRA testing against TST on the progression from LTBI to TB were sparse, and these results should be interpreted with caution due to uncertainty, risk of bias, and unexplained heterogeneity. Population-based studies with adequate sample size and follow-up are required to adequately compare the performance of IGRA with TST in people at high risk of TB.

Valuing the health states associated with Chlamydia trachomatis infections and their sequelae: a systematic review of economic evaluations and primary studies.

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control sexually transmitted infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are increasingly required to present their outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years using preference-based measurements of relevant health states. The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate how published cost-effectiveness studies have conceptualized and valued health states associated with chlamydia and to examine the primary evidence available to inform health state utility values (HSUVs). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with searches of six electronic databases up to December 2012. Data on study characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted by using a standard template. RESULTS: Nineteen economic evaluations of relevant interventions were included. Individual studies considered different health states and assigned different values and durations. Eleven studies cited the same source for HSUVs. Only five primary studies valued relevant health states. The methods and viewpoints adopted varied, and different values for health states were generated. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in the information available about HSUVs associated with chlamydia and its complications have implications for the robustness of economic evaluations in this area. None of the primary studies could be used without reservation to inform cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom. Future debate should consider appropriate methods for valuing health states for infectious diseases, because recommended approaches may not be suitable. Unless we adequately tackle the challenges associated with measuring and valuing health-related quality of life for patients with chlamydia and other infectious diseases, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area will remain problematic.

Artificial intelligence software for analysing chest X-ray images to identify suspected lung cancer: an evidence synthesis early value assessment.

Background: Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in the United Kingdom. It is often diagnosed late. The 5-year survival rate for lung cancer is below 10%. Early diagnosis may improve survival. Software that has an artificial intelligence-developed algorithm might be useful in assisting with the identification of suspected lung cancer. Objectives: This review sought to identify evidence on adjunct artificial intelligence software for analysing chest X-rays for suspected lung cancer, and to develop a conceptual cost-effectiveness model to inform discussion of what would be required to develop a fully executable cost-effectiveness model for future economic evaluation. Data sources: The data sources were MEDLINE All, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, ACM Digital Library, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, clinical experts, Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, company submissions and clinical experts. Searches were conducted from 25 November 2022 to 18 January 2023. Methods: Rapid evidence synthesis methods were employed. Data from companies were scrutinised. The eligibility criteria were (1) primary care populations referred for chest X-ray due to symptoms suggestive of lung cancer or reasons unrelated to lung cancer; (2) study designs that compared radiology specialist assessing chest X-ray with adjunct artificial intelligence software versus radiology specialists alone and (3) outcomes relating to test accuracy, practical implications of using artificial intelligence software and patient-related outcomes. A conceptual decision-analytic model was developed to inform a potential full cost-effectiveness evaluation of adjunct artificial intelligence software for analysing chest X-ray images to identify suspected lung cancer. Results: None of the studies identified in the searches or submitted by the companies met the inclusion criteria of the review. Contextual information from six studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria provided some evidence that sensitivity for lung cancer detection (but not nodule detection) might be higher when chest X-rays are interpreted by radiology specialists in combination with artificial intelligence software than when they are interpreted by radiology specialists alone. No significant differences were observed for specificity, positive predictive value or number of cancers detected. None of the six studies provided evidence on the clinical effectiveness of adjunct artificial intelligence software. The conceptual model highlighted a paucity of input data along the course of the diagnostic pathway and identified key assumptions required for evidence linkage. Limitations: This review employed rapid evidence synthesis methods. This included only one reviewer conducting all elements of the review, and targeted searches that were conducted in English only. No eligible studies were identified. Conclusions: There is currently no evidence applicable to this review on the use of adjunct artificial intelligence software for the detection of suspected lung cancer on chest X-ray in either people referred from primary care with symptoms of lung cancer or people referred from primary care for other reasons. Future work: Future research is required to understand the accuracy of adjunct artificial intelligence software to detect lung nodules and cancers, as well as its impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. Research generating key input parameters for the conceptual model will enable refinement of the model structure, and conversion to a full working model, to analyse the cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence software for this indication. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023384164. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135755) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 50. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in the United Kingdom. Early diagnosis may improve survival, as lung cancer is often diagnosed late. Chest X-rays can be used to identify features of lung cancer. There can be delays in getting X-rays, and sometimes features of lung cancer are not seen on them. Artificial intelligence software may help by finding features of cancer on chest X-rays and highlighting them. A radiologist will look at the X-rays and information from the software. There is a lack of information about how lung cancer diagnosis could change if artificial intelligence software is used and what the costs may be to the National Health Service. This project looked at the use of artificial intelligence software in the detection of lung cancer in people referred from primary care. Software companies were invited to provide evidence. There were no studies that looked at this topic among people from primary care. We summarised the closest evidence we could find instead. All of this had flaws, so we could not tell if the results were accurate or helpful to this review. It was not clear if artificial intelligence helped to find cancers or improve people's health. We made a theoretical model to discuss the best way to assess if artificial intelligence software might be cost-effective in detecting lung cancer and what evidence would be needed to do this in a fully working model. Costs and alternative pricing models provided by five companies were used to calculate the cost of adding artificial intelligence software to review chest X-rays in people referred from their general practitioner, for the first 5 years, based on one National Health Service trust. Future studies are needed to identify the impact of adjunct artificial intelligence on test accuracy, clinical decision-making and patient outcomes (e.g. mortality and morbidity).

FOUND Trial: randomised controlled trial study protocol for case finding of obstructive sleep apnoea in primary care using a novel device.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common, but underdiagnosed, sleep disorder. If untreated, it leads to poor health outcomes, including Alzheimer's disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving the testing for OSA into general practice and how general practitioner (GP)-based screening affects overall detection rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised controlled trial of case finding of OSA in general practice using a novel Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-registered device (AcuPebble SA100) compared with usual care with internal feasibility phase. A diverse sample of general practices (approximately 40) from across the West Midlands Clinical Research Network will identify participants from their records. Eligible participants will be aged 50-70 years with body mass index >30 kg/m2 and diabetes (type 1 or 2) and/or hypertension (office blood pressure >145/90 mm Hg or on treatment). They will exclude individuals with known OSA or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or those they deem unable to take part. After eligibility screening, consent and baseline assessment, participants will be randomised to either the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention arm will receive by post the AcuPebble sleep test kit. Those in the control arm will continue with usual care. Follow-up questionnaires will be completed at 6 months. The study is powered (90%) to detect a 5% difference and will require 606 patients in each arm (713 will be recruited to each arm to allow for attrition). Due to the nature of the intervention, participants and GPs will not be blinded to the allocation. OUTCOMES: Primary: Detection rate of moderate-to-severe OSA in the intervention group versus control group. Secondary: Time to diagnosis and time to treatment for intervention versus control group for mild, moderate and severe OSA; cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the different testing pathways. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial started on 1 November 2022. Ethical approval was granted from the South Central Oxford A Research Ethics Committee on 9 June 2023 (23/SC/0188) (protocol amendment version 1.3; update with amendment and approval to renumber to V2.0 on 29 August 2023). Patient recruitment began on 7 January 2024; initial planned end date will be on 31 April 2025.Results will be uploaded to the ISRCTN register within 12 months of the end of the trial date, presented at conferences, submitted to peer-reviewed journals and distributed via our patient and public involvement networks.The University of Warwick will act as the trial sponsor. The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Sponsor and Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit standard operating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 16982033.

Impact of updated trial data on the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous mitral repair.

When updated clinical trial data becomes available reassessing the cost-effectiveness of technologies may modify estimates and influence decision-making. We investigated the impact of updated trial outcomes on the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous mitral repair (PR) for secondary mitral regurgitation. We updated our previous three-state time-varying Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PR + guideline directed medical treatment (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. Key clinical inputs (overall survival (OS) and heart failure hospitalisations (HFH)) were obtained using the 3-year trial findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy) RCT. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and report how these differ between analyses based on early (2-year) and updated (3-year) evidence. Updated trial data showed an increase in mortality in the intervention arm between two and three years follow-up that was not seen in the control arm. Deterministic and multivariate cost-effectiveness modelling yielded incremental cost effectiveness ratios ICERs of €38,123 and €31,227 /QALY. Compared to our 2-year based estimate (€21,918 / QALY) these results imply an approximate 1.5-fold increase in ICER. The availability of updated survival analyses from the COAPT pivotal trial suggests previous estimates based on 2-year trial findings were over optimistic for the intervention.

Potential impact on cost-effectiveness estimates of using immature survival data: a case study based on transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) used for patients with severe mitral regurgitation at high surgical risk.

OBJECTIVE: To review the survival modelling used in cost-effectiveness studies evaluating an interventional procedure and to discuss implications for decision-makers. DESIGN: A case study of three economic evaluations that each used immature data from the EVEREST II High Surgical Risk (HSR) Study of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) who were at high risk of surgery. SETTING: Estimation of patient survival in cost-effectiveness studies. PARTICIPANTS: The EVEREST II HSR Study included 78 patients who had TEER of the mitral valve using the MitraClip device and a retrospectively identified control group of 36 patients who received medical management and were followed up for 12 months. Observed survival (TEER arm only) was updated at 5 years. RESULTS: Two studies used 12-month observed mortality from EVEREST II HSR to model survival over lifetime horizons. Observed and modelled survival were associated with considerable uncertainty due to short follow-up and small numbers of participants. Modelling control patients' survival required an approximate 10-fold extrapolation based on 12-month observation of only 38 patients. Observed 5-year survival in the TEER group differed from that less mature follow-up suggesting that survival modelling based on shorter follow-up was unsatisfactory. No public domain data for the control group are available beyond 12-month follow-up so meaningful estimates using mature data for both arms are currently not possible. A third study developed survival models using incompletely reported transitions between MR grades in EVEREST II HSR and mortality rates observed for different MR grades derived from a study in an unrelated population. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling survival in such small samples followed up for only 12 months is associated with great uncertainty, and cost-effectiveness results based on these analyses should be viewed as premature and used cautiously in reimbursement decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of testing for latent tuberculosis infection in people with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for predicting LTBI that progresses to active tuberculosis (TB) in people with HIV. DESIGN: We developed a decision-analytical model that constituted a decision tree covering diagnosis of LTBI and a Markov model covering progression to active TB. The model represents the lifetime experience following testing for LTBI, and discounting costs, and benefits at 3.5% per annum in line with UK standards. We undertook probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses. SETTING: UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective in a primary care setting. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of adults recently diagnosed with HIV. INTERVENTIONS: Interferon-gamma release assays and tuberculin skin test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: All strategies except T-SPOT.TB were cost-effective at identifying LTBI, with the QFT-GIT-negative followed by TST5mm strategy being the most costly and effective. Results indicated that there was little preference between strategies at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000. At thresholds above £40 000 per QALY, there was a clear preference for the QFT-GIT-negative followed by TST5mm, with a probability of 0.41 of being cost-effective. Results showed that specificity for QFT-GIT and TST5mm were the main drivers of the economic model. CONCLUSION: Screening for LTBI has important public health and clinical benefits. Most of the strategies are cost-effective. These results should be interpreted with caution because of the paucity of studies included in the meta-analysis of test accuracy studies. Additional high-quality primary studies are needed to have a definitive answer about, which strategy is the most effective.

A comparison of published time invariant Markov models with Partitioned Survival models for cost effectiveness estimation; three case studies of treatments for glioblastoma multiforme.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have mostly used state transition Markov models with time invariant transition probabilities (TIMMs). In three case studies of GBM treatments, we compared Partitioned Survival model (PSM) results with published outputs from TIMMs. METHODS: PSMs used the same RCT data sources, utility values, time horizons, cycle times and annual discounting used in published TIMMs. Reported overall survival and progression-free survival plots were digitised and fitted with a range of parametric models. Economic model outputs were generated in the same form as reported for the TIMMs. PSM output uncertainty was explored in univariate and in multivariate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: PSMs generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that were different to the published TIMMs. The magnitude of difference was substantial in two cases. The PSMs were reasonably robust and in sensitivity analyses were sensitive to variations in the same model inputs as were the TIMMs. When compared to the RCT data, the TIMMs tended to generate underestimates of the likely overall survival gain. TIMM estimates for depletion of individuals from the stable disease state and for accumulation in the dead state had relatively poor resemblance to the source RCT data. CONCLUSION: TIMMs delivered different cost-effectiveness estimates to PSMs; in two cases, TIMMs produced substantially lower ICER values than PSMs. Model output differences appear attributable to less realistic cost-and-benefit estimates generated in TIMMs due to rapid depletion from the stable disease state and/or accumulation in the dead state.

Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an inherited genetic condition that is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended that people with colorectal cancer are tested for Lynch syndrome. Routine testing for Lynch syndrome among people with endometrial cancer is not currently conducted. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the test accuracy of immunohistochemistry- and microsatellite instability-based strategies to detect Lynch syndrome among people who have endometrial cancer, and the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of testing for Lynch syndrome among people who have been diagnosed with endometrial cancer. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in the following databases, from inception to August 2019 - MEDLINE ALL, EMBASE (both via Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (both via Wiley Online Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database (both via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (both via Web of Science), PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconPapers (Research Papers in Economics) and School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database. The references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were also checked and experts on the team were consulted. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible studies included people with endometrial cancer who were tested for Lynch syndrome using immunohistochemistry- and/or microsatellite instability-based testing [with or without mutL homologue 1 (MLH1) promoter hypermethylation testing], with Lynch syndrome diagnosis being established though germline testing of normal (non-tumour) tissue for constitutional mutations in mismatch repair. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, the Consolidated Health Economic Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklist. Two reviewers independently conducted each stage of the review. A meta-analysis of test accuracy was not possible because of the number and heterogeneity of studies. A narrative summary of test accuracy results was provided, reporting test accuracy estimates and presenting forest plots. The economic model constituted a decision tree followed by Markov models for the impact of colorectal and endometrial surveillance, and aspirin prophylaxis with a lifetime time horizon. RESULTS: The clinical effectiveness search identified 3308 studies; 38 studies of test accuracy were included. (No studies of clinical effectiveness of endometrial cancer surveillance met the inclusion criteria.) Four test accuracy studies compared microsatellite instability with immunohistochemistry. No clear difference in accuracy between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability was observed. There was some evidence that specificity of immunohistochemistry could be improved with the addition of methylation testing. There was high concordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. The economic model indicated that all testing strategies, compared with no testing, were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9420 per quality-adjusted life-year. The second most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry testing alone, but incremental analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding £130,000. Results were robust across all scenario analyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £5690 to £20,740; only removing the benefits of colorectal cancer surveillance produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in excess of the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. A sensitivity analysis identified the main cost drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as percentage of relatives accepting counselling and prevalence of Lynch syndrome in the population. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a 0.93 probability that immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is cost-effective, compared with no testing. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review excluded grey literature, studies written in non-English languages and studies for which the reference standard could not be established. Studies were included when Lynch syndrome was diagnosed by genetic confirmation of constitutional variants in the four mismatch repair genes (i.e. MLH1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6 and postmeiotic segregation increased 2). Variants of uncertain significance were reported as per the studies. There were limitations in the economic model around uncertainty in the model parameters and a lack of modelling of the potential harms of gynaecological surveillance and specific pathway modelling of genetic testing for somatic mismatch repair mutations. CONCLUSION: The economic model suggests that testing women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome is cost-effective, but that results should be treated with caution because of uncertain model inputs. FUTURE WORK: Randomised controlled trials could provide evidence on the effect of earlier intervention on outcomes and the balance of benefits and harms of gynaecological cancer surveillance. Follow-up of negative cases through disease registers could be used to determine false negative cases. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147185. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition that is caused by a problem in the genes. People who have Lynch syndrome have a higher risk of some types of cancer (such as bowel and womb cancers) than people who do not have it. Identifying Lynch syndrome could stop cancers developing, lead to earlier treatment for cancers and help to find other family members who might have it. Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends testing for Lynch syndrome in people who have bowel cancer. Our aim was to investigate whether or not we should test for Lynch syndrome in women with womb cancer, and their relatives. We investigated two main tests: immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. There was no clear evidence that one of these tests is better than the other. There is some evidence that both tests are reasonably accurate. There was no good-quality evidence about whether or not treating women with Lynch syndrome with extra cancer screening and aspirin improves their outcomes. We used the best evidence available in our economic model, but it was at high risk of bias. The economic model suggested that testing women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome is cost-effective. The best test in the model was immunohistochemistry followed by methylation testing. We are unsure of these results because of the low quality of evidence available.

Cost-effectiveness of community health systems strengthening: quality improvement interventions at community level to realise maternal and child health gains in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Improvements in maternal and infant health outcomes are policy priorities in Kenya. Achieving these outcomes depends on early identification of pregnancy and quality of primary healthcare. Quality improvement interventions have been shown to contribute to increases in identification, referral and follow-up of pregnant women by community health workers. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using quality improvement at community level to reduce maternal and infant mortality in Kenya. METHODS: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of quality improvement compared with standard of care treatment for antenatal and delivering mothers using a decision tree model and taking a health system perspective. We used both process (antenatal initiation in first trimester and skilled delivery) and health outcomes (maternal and infant deaths averted, as well as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)) as our effectiveness measures and actual implementation costs, discounting costs only. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: We found that the community quality improvement intervention was more cost-effective compared with standard community healthcare, with incremental cost per DALY averted of $249 under the deterministic analysis and 76% likelihood of cost-effectiveness under the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a standard threshold. The deterministic estimate of incremental cost per additional skilled delivery was US$10, per additional early antenatal care presentation US$155, per maternal death averted US$5654 and per infant death averted US$37 536 (2017 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the community quality improvement intervention was cost-effective compared with the standard community healthcare in Kenya due to improvements in antenatal care uptake and skilled delivery. It is likely that quality improvement interventions are a good investment and may also yield benefits in other health areas.

Conflicting findings between the Mitra-Fr and the Coapt trials: Implications regarding the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous repair for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation.

PURPOSE: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Mitra-Fr and Coapt, evaluating the benefit of percutaneous repair (PR) for heart failure (HF) patients with severe mitral regurgitation, have led to conflicting results. We aimed to evaluate the impact of these trial results on the cost-effectiveness of PR using effectiveness inputs from the two RCTs. METHODS: We developed a time varying Markov type model with three mutually exclusive health states: alive without HF hospitalisation, alive with HF hospitalisation, and dead. Clinically plausible extrapolations beyond observed data were obtained by developing parametric modelling for overall survival and HF hospitalisations using published data from each trial. We adopted the perspective of the French Health System and used a 30-year time horizon. Results were expressed as € / quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained using utility inputs from literature. FINDINGS: Results are presented using treatment efficacy measures from Mitra-F and Coapt trials respectively. With the Mitra-Fr data, after annual discounting, the base case model generated an incremental 0.00387 QALY at a cost of €25,010, yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €6,467,032 / QALY. The model was sensitive to changes made to model inputs. There was no potential of PR being cost-effective. With the Coapt data, the model generated 1.19 QALY gain at a cost of €26,130 yielding an ICER of €21,918 / QALY and at a threshold of >€50,000/QALY PR had a probability of 1 of being cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS: Cost effectiveness results were conflicting; reconciling differences between trials is a priority and could promote optimal cost effectiveness analyses and resource allocation.

Will the US$5 million onasemnogene abeparvosec treatment for spinal muscular atrophy represent 'value for money' for the NHS? A rapid inquiry into suggestions that it may be cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES: Nusinersen (Spinraza®, Biogen) and onasemnogene abeparvosec (Zolgensma®, Novartis) are novel gene-based therapies for the orphan disease Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Onasemnogene abeparvosec has been allocated an acquisition cost of up to US$5 million per patient. We undertook a rapid inquiry to evaluate if onasemnogene abeparvosec is likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS. METHODS: We used publicly available cost-effectiveness data and recommended methodology to perform cost-utility evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvosec versus best supportive care and nusinersen. RESULTS: Our evaluations highlight wide variations in cost and benefit estimates of nusinersen and indicate that onasemnogene abeparvosec is unlikely to represent value for money according to current standards of reimbursement. Results are discussed in the context of reimbursement decisions for orphan diseases. CONCLUSION: Commonly implemented commercial confidentiality practices combined with uncertain data obscure scrutiny and justification of past and present reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. Future cutting edge expensive therapies will be numerous, they will entail very substantial economic strains. We conclude that there is an urgent and increasing need for the development of improved procedures that can lead to equitable, consistent, and transparent decision-making.

Ocrelizumab for Treating Patients with Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Ocrelizumab is indicated for relapsing remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (RRMS and PPMS, respectively). In an appraisal undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the company Roche presented the evidence for ocrelizumab used in patients with PPMS, which came from one single randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ocrelizumab versus placebo. Based on results from this trial, the licensed indication was restricted to patients with early PPMS in terms of disease duration and level of disability, and with imaging features characteristic of inflammatory activity. Overall, the Evidence Review Group (ERG) found that the RCT had a low risk of bias. In the post-hoc defined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) active subgroup, matching the label indication, the risk of confirmed disability progression sustained for 12 weeks (CDP-12) was significantly delayed in the ocrelizumab group compared to placebo. However, considering the same risk with progression sustained for 24 weeks (CDP-24), which was deemed the most clinically relevant, the benefit from ocrelizumab did not reach statistical significance. In the same MRI active subgroup, benefits from ocrelizumab on functional outcomes and on health-related quality of life were not clearly demonstrated. A de novo Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) for treating patients with PPMS. Health states were defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), ranging from 0 to 9. Disability progression was based on the MSBase natural history cohort that exhibited disease progression in the absence of disease-modifying therapy. Treatment with ocrelizumab delayed disability progression, with evidence of its clinical effectiveness obtained from the RCT. The economic analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, and the outcomes were reported in terms of life years gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with the overall results reported in terms of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY gained over a 50-year time horizon. Both costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% per annum. The company undertook deterministic one-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The ERG raised several concerns, which were discussed at the appraisal committee meetings, resulting in the committee's preferences being applied and a revised economic analysis from the company. Under an approved patient access scheme with appraisal committee preferences applied, analyses yielded an ICER of approximately £78,300 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis results indicated that the treatment effect on CDP-12 had the greatest impact. Results for the PSA showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained, ocrelizumab versus BSC had a zero probability of being cost-effective. Following new analyses submitted by the company, with a revised confidential patient access scheme, NICE recommended ocrelizumab in the treatment of early PPMS in adults with imaging features characteristic of inflammatory activity.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Licensed Drugs Used for Previously Treated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Negative Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers. There are many published studies of cost-effectiveness analyses of licensed treatments, but no study has compared these studies or their approaches simultaneously. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the methodology used in published economic analyses of licensed interventions for previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC in patients without anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor expression. METHODS: A systematic review was performed, including a systematic search of key databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Cost-effectiveness Registry) limited to the period from 01 January 2001 to 26 July 2019. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and quality appraised identified studies. The reporting quality of the studies was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklists. RESULTS: Thirty-one published records met the inclusion criteria, which corresponded to 30 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. Analytical approaches included partitioned survival models (n = 14), state-transition models (n = 7) and retrospective analyses of new or published data (n = 8). Model structure was generally consistent, with pre-progression, post-progression and death health states used most commonly. Other characteristics varied more widely, including the perspective of analysis, discounting, time horizon, usually to align with the country that the analysis was set in. CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide range of approaches in the modelling of treatments for advanced NSCLC; however, the model structures are consistent. There is variation in the exploration of sensitivity analyses, with considerable uncertainty remaining in most evaluations. Improved reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in future analyses.

Pembrolizumab for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Pembrolizumab is an intravenously administered monoclonal antibody licensed for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-containing chemotherapy. This summary presents the perspective of Warwick Evidence, the Evidence Review Group (ERG) appointed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the single technology appraisal of pembrolizumab for this indication. Pembrolizumab is manufactured by Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD). The major source of clinical effectiveness was the KEYNOTE-045 trial, where 542 patients received either pembrolizumab or clinician's choice of docetaxel, paclitaxel or vinflunine as a second-line treatment. No indirect treatment comparison was performed. The clinical effectiveness was assessed using hazard ratios for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, together with the subpopulations positive for programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (combined positive score [CPS] ≥ 1%) and strongly positive for PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 10%). In the ITT population, OS improved with pembrolizumab (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) while PFS outcomes showed no difference (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.19). Pembrolizumab demonstrated a better safety profile than its combined comparators, with fewer patients experiencing adverse events (60.9 vs 90.2%). Similar results were observed in populations expressing PD-L1. MSD estimated the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab using a de novo partitioned survival model. The model had three health states: pre-progression, post-progression and death, where OS and PFS estimates excluded patients who received vinflunine. The largest uncertainty was over the selection of the parametric models used to extrapolate OS and PFS and the time point for when to begin their extrapolation. The company preferences for extrapolation were not well supported and the ERG disagreed with their selection for OS. Utility values were also contentious, with the company preferring to use pooled time-to-death-based utilities pooled across treatment arms, whilst the ERG preferred pooled progression-based utilities. The company preferred to use data from patients receiving vinflunine when calculating the utility values, which the ERG disagreed with as this is not recommended treatment within the UK. The company assumed a lifetime treatment effect for their model; however, the lack of evidence made it difficult to confidently provide a realistic estimate of treatment effect duration. Various durations were explored (3, 5 and 10 years). The first appraisal committee meeting concluded that pembrolizumab was not cost effective, largely due to uncertainty in the OS and PFS extrapolations. The company's second submission included an additional 4 months follow-up to survival data. The company in this new submission maintained their original assumptions in their base-case analysis, changing only the choice of parametric curve for PFS. This change resulted in the OS and PFS curves intersecting at 6 years in the pembrolizumab arm, at which point PFS identically followed OS. This resulted in no patients in the post-progression health state beyond this time point, and therefore, the majority of pembrolizumab's benefit came from pre-progression survival. Given the unclear PFS benefit, the ERG found this implausible and maintained their original base-case model assumptions. Considerable uncertainty remained over the specification of the extrapolations and the duration of treatment effect. Based on a new-value proposition submitted by the company, the appraisal committee concluded that pembrolizumab had plausible potential to be cost effective. Pembrolizumab was referred for funding through the Cancer Drugs Fund, so that further data could be collected with the aim of diminishing the outstanding uncertainties pertaining to its clinical effectiveness.