The extent and quality of qualitative evidence included in health technology assessments: a review of submissions to NICE and CADTH.

OBJECTIVES: Qualitative methods allow in-depth exploration of patient experiences and can provide context for healthcare decision making. Frameworks for patient-based evidence in health technology assessment (HTA) are expanding; yet, how extensively qualitative methods are currently used is unclear. This review characterized the extent and quality of qualitative data submitted to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for HTA. METHODS: NICE and CADTH submissions from September 2019 to August 2021 were reviewed. Submission characteristics and features of patient-based evidence included within submissions were extracted. The quality of qualitative reporting was assessed using the CASP checklist. RESULTS: Patient-based evidence was included in 83/107 NICE and 119/124 CADTH submissions. A small proportion described qualitative data collection (NICE=14; CADTH=24) and analysis (NICE=6; CADTH=9) methods. One-to-one interviews were the most common data collection method, and thematic analysis was exclusively used. Thirty-three percent of NICE submissions scored >7 yes responses on CASP, versus 78 percent of CADTH submissions. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient-based evidence was common in the submissions reviewed, only 14/107 NICE and 24/124 CADTH submissions involved formal qualitative data collection. Use of formal analysis methods was even rarer and reporting tended to be brief. At present, there is little guidance about qualitative evidence most likely to be informative and therefore to potentially impact decision making. Ensuring, however, that qualitative data are collected and analyzed in a systematic, rigorous way will maximize their usefulness and ensure that patient voices are clearly heard.

Tumor burden and liver function in HCC patient selection for selective internal radiation therapy: SARAH post-hoc study.

Aim: To determine whether a liver tumor burden ≤25% and well-preserved liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1) are appropriate criteria for identifying patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who may benefit from selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using 90yttrium resin microspheres versus sorafenib. Patients & methods: Post-hoc analysis of patients in the intention-to-treat population of the SARAH trial (SIRT vs sorafenib) with ≤25% tumor burden and albumin-bilirubin grade 1. Primary end point: overall survival. Results: Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI: 15.2-32.5, n = 37) with SIRT and 17.0 months (11.6-20.8, n = 48) with sorafenib (hazard ratios: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.44-1.21; p = 0.22). Conclusion: A combination of good liver function and low tumor burden may be relevant for selection of hepatocellular carcinoma patients for SIRT.

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, regorafenib, TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil), and best supportive care (BSC) as third-line treatment in patients with mCRC. METHODS: An SLR was conducted to identify studies comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tumor response, or adverse event (AE) incidence. An exploratory NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for OS using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified in the SLR: two double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) for each drug, one open-label RCT, and two non-randomized comparative studies for SIRT. Patient selection criteria differed between studies, with SIRT studies including patients with liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent with TAS-102 than regorafenib or SIRT; diarrhea was more common with TAS-102 and regorafenib than SIRT. The exploratory NMA suggested that all active treatments improved OS, with HRs of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.30-0.78) for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, 0.63 (0.38-1.03) for TAS-102, and 0.67 (0.40-1.08) for regorafenib each compared to BSC. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib, TAS-102 and SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres are more effective than BSC in third-line treatment of mCRC; however, study heterogeneity made comparisons between active treatments challenging. SIRT is a viable treatment for third-line mCRC and its favorable AE profile should be considered in the therapeutic decision-making process.

An economic model for the prevention of MRSA infections after surgery: non-glycopeptide or glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis?

AIM: Surgical site infection is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The multiresistant strains (MRSA) are resistant to most antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. Our aim was to explore whether there is a threshold of MRSA prevalence at which switching to routine glycopeptide-based antibiotic prophylaxis becomes cost-effective. METHODS: An indicative model was designed to explore the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin, cephalosporin or a combination, in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty. RESULTS: If the MRSA infection rate is equal to or above 0.25% and the rate of other infections with cephalosporin prophylaxis is equal to or above 0.2%, use of the combination antibiotic prophylaxis is optimal. DISCUSSION: Modelling the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MRSA prevention is complex due to uncertainty around resistance and effectiveness of glycopeptides. CONCLUSIONS: The indicative model provides a framework for evaluation. More work is needed to understand the impact of antibiotic resistance over time in these currently effective antibiotics.