Reducing overtreatment associated with overdiagnosis in cervical cancer screening-A model-based benefit-harm analysis for Austria.

A general concern exists that cervical cancer screening using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing may lead to considerable overtreatment. We evaluated the trade-off between benefits and overtreatment among different screening strategies differing by primary tests (cytology, p16/Ki-67, HPV alone or in combinations), interval, age and diagnostic follow-up algorithms. A Markov state-transition model calibrated to the Austrian epidemiological context was used to predict cervical cancer cases, deaths, overtreatments and incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR) for each strategy. When considering the same screening interval, HPV-based screening strategies were more effective compared to cytology or p16/Ki-67 testing (e.g., relative reduction in cervical cancer with biennial screening: 67.7% for HPV + Pap cotesting, 57.3% for cytology and 65.5% for p16/Ki-67), but were associated with increased overtreatment (e.g., 19.8% more conizations with biennial HPV + Papcotesting vs. biennial cytology). The IHBRs measured in unnecessary conizations per additional prevented cancer-related death were 31 (quinquennial Pap + p16/Ki-67-triage), 49 (triennial Pap + p16/Ki-67-triage), 58 (triennial HPV + Pap cotesting), 66 (biennial HPV + Pap cotesting), 189 (annual Pap + p16/Ki-67-triage) and 401 (annual p16/Ki-67 testing alone). The IHBRs increased significantly with increasing screening adherence rates and slightly with lower age at screening initiation, with a reduction in HPV incidence or with lower Pap-test sensitivity. Depending on the accepted IHBR threshold, biennial or triennial HPV-based screening in women as of age 30 and biennial cytology in younger women may be considered in opportunistic screening settings with low or moderate adherence such as in Austria. In organized settings with high screening adherence and in postvaccination settings with lower HPV prevalence, the interval may be prolonged.

Algorithms to identify COPD in health systems with and without access to ICD coding: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Estimation of incidence, prevalence and disease burden through routine insurance data is challenging because of under-diagnosis and under-treatment, particularly for early stage disease in health care systems where outpatient International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnoses are not collected. This poses the question of which criteria are commonly applied to identify COPD patients in claims datasets in the absence of ICD diagnoses, and which information can be used as a substitute. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize previously reported methodological approaches for the identification of COPD patients through routine data and to compile potential criteria for the identification of COPD patients if ICD codes are not available. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed in Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar from January 2000 through October 2018, followed by a manual review of the included studies by at least two independent raters. Study characteristics and all identifying criteria used in the studies were systematically extracted from the publications, categorized, and compiled in evidence tables. RESULTS: In total, the systematic search yielded 151 publications. After title and abstract screening, 38 publications were included into the systematic assessment. In these studies, the most frequently used (22/38) criteria set to identify COPD patients included ICD codes, hospitalization, and ambulatory visits. Only four out of 38 studies used methods other than ICD coding. In a significant proportion of studies, the age range of the target population (33/38) and hospitalization (30/38) were provided. Ambulatory data were included in 24, physician claims in 22, and pharmaceutical data in 18 studies. Only five studies used spirometry, two used surgery and one used oxygen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of different criteria is used for the identification of COPD from routine data. The most promising criteria set in data environments where ambulatory diagnosis codes are lacking is the consideration of additional illness-related information with special attention to pharmacotherapy data. Further health services research should focus on the application of more systematic internal and/or external validation approaches.

Budget Impact Analysis of Cancer Screening: A Methodological Review.

BACKGROUND: Budget impact analyses (BIAs) describe changes in intervention- and disease-related costs of new technologies. Evidence on the quality of BIAs for cancer screening is lacking. OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed the literature and methods to assess how closely BIA guidelines are followed when BIAs are performed for cancer-screening programs. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York), and CEA registry of the Tufts Medical Center. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs published in English, 2010-2018. SYNTHESIS METHODS: Standardized evidence tables were generated to extract and compare study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were identified evaluating screening for breast (5), colorectal (6), cervical (3), lung (1), prostate (3), and skin (1) cancers. Model designs included decision-analytic models (13) and simple cost calculators (6). From all studies, only 53% reported costs for a minimum of 3 years, 58% compared to a mix of screening options, 42% reported model validation, and 37% reported uncertainty analysis for participation rates. The quality of studies appeared to be independent of cancer site. LIMITATIONS: "Gray" literature was not searched, misinterpretation is possible due to limited information in publications, and focus was on international methodological guidelines rather than regional guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights considerable variability in the extent to which BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs followed recommended guidelines. The annual budget impact at least over the next 3-5 years should be estimated. Validation and uncertainty analysis should always be conducted. Continued dissemination efforts of existing best-practice guidelines are necessary to ensure high-quality analyses.

Oncotyrol--Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine: Methods and Applications of Health Technology Assessment and Outcomes Research.

BACKGROUND: The Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine is an international and interdisciplinary alliance combining research and commercial competencies to accelerate the development, evaluation and translation of personalized healthcare strategies in cancer. The philosophy of Oncotyrol is to collaborate with relevant stakeholders and advance knowledge "from bench to bedside to population and back". Oncotyrol is funded through the COMET Excellence Program by the Austrian government via the national Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). This article focuses on the role of health technology assessment (HTA) and outcomes research in personalized cancer medicine in the context of Oncotyrol. METHODS: Oncotyrol, which currently comprises approximately 20 individual projects, has four research areas: Area 1: Biomarker and Drug Target Identification; Area 2: Assay Development and Drug Screening; Area 3: Innovative Therapies; Area 4: Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics. Area 4 translates the results from Areas 1 to 3 to populations and society and reports them back to Area 3 to inform clinical studies and guidelines, and to Areas 1 and 2 to guide further research and development. RESULTS: In a series of international expert workshops, the Oncotyrol International Expert Task Force for Personalized Cancer Medicine developed the Methodological Framework for Early Health Technology Assessment and Decision Modeling in Cancer and practical guidelines in this field. Further projects included applications in the fields of sequential treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness evaluation of prostate cancer screening, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple cervical cancer screening strategies, and benefits and cost-effectiveness of genomic test-based treatment strategies in breast cancer. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary setting as generated in Oncotyrol provides unique opportunities such as systematically coordinating lab and bench research, product development, clinical studies and decision science/HTA and transparent joint planning of research and development with a partnership of researchers, manufacturers and health policy decision makers. However, generating a joint research and legal framework with numerous partners from different sectors can be challenging, particularly in the starting period of such an endeavor. The journey to translational personalized medicine through multidisciplinary collaborations may still be long and difficult, but it is evident that it must be continued to turn vision into reality.

[Outpatient cardiac phase III rehabilitation at a Viennese institution - retrospective cohort study]. / Ambulante kardiologische Phase-III-Rehabilitation - retrospektive Kohortenstudie zu einer Wiener Einrichtung.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study analyses effectiveness and sustainability of the current cardiac Phase III (Ph-III) rehabilitation program, provided by the Centre for Outpatient Rehabilitation (ZAR). METHODS: We analysed routine data of 451 intervention group patients (IG, with Ph-III) and 781 control group patients (KG, without Ph-III). RESULTS: In a median observation period of 2.73 years we found 30% less cases of death in the IG based on the mortality risk observed in the KG (rr = 0.70; p = 0.108). However, we registered more re-events, mainly stent implantations in the IG (rr = 1.34; p = 0.095). Groups differed in some baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The lower mortality risk by trend might be explained by the close-meshed care, the IG patients' more health conscious behaviour or a selection bias of the KG (e.g. more severe underlying disease). The causality of potential positive effects cannot be confirmed by this study because of the study design.