Familial hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review of modeling studies on screening interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: FH is still underdiagnosed. Cost-effectiveness results of preventive screening strategies vary. We aimed at systematically assessing the benefits, harms and cost effectiveness of screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and at providing an overview of the main characteristics and methodological approaches of applied decision-analytic models. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EconLit, CRD-databases and the CEA-registry for FH screening starting 2012. Earlier studies were included from a published systematic review. Results were reported in standardized semi-quantitative evidence tables. Costs were converted to current euros. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were recalculated according to economic guidelines. RESULTS: Out of our 211 retrieved studies, eight were included in the review in addition to six studies from an earlier review. Studies were conducted in Europe (UK, The Netherlands, Spain, Poland), USA and Australia evaluating cascade (CS), opportunistic (OS), universal screening (UniS), or combinations using genetic testing, clinical criteria or combinations. Studies evaluating only CS identified strategies with an ICER of up to 37,100 EUR/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) but some strategies were dominated depending on test combinations. UniS of newborns in combination with CS had an ICER≤15,000 EUR/QALY for sequential cholesterol-genetic screening. In other studies, UniS was dominated by OS/CS. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review demonstrates the values of FH screening and provides an overview of potentially relevant screening strategies to be tested using a decision-analytic model for the respective country or region. Future research is needed on the transferability of results to other countries and modeling spillover effects to newborns.

PET-Based Staging Is Cost-Effective in Early-Stage Follicular Lymphoma.

The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of staging PET/CT in early-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) from the Canadian health-care system perspective. Methods: The study population was FL patients staged as early-stage using conventional CT imaging and planned for curative-intent radiation therapy (RT). A decision analytic model simulated the management after adding staging PET/CT versus using staging CT alone. In the no-PET/CT strategy, all patients proceeded to curative-intent RT as planned. In the PET/CT strategy, PET/CT information could result in an increased RT volume, switching to a noncurative approach, or no change in RT treatment as planned. The subsequent disease course was described using a state-transition cohort model over a 30-y time horizon. Diagnostic characteristics, probabilities, utilities, and costs were derived from the literature. Baseline analysis was performed using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2019 Canadian dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted, evaluating net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 simulations was performed. Costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 1.5%. Results: In the reference case scenario, staging PET/CT was the dominant strategy, resulting in an average lifetime cost saving of $3,165 and a gain of 0.32 QALYs. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the PET/CT strategy remained the preferred strategy for all scenarios supported by available data. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the PET/CT strategy was strongly dominant in 77% of simulations (i.e., reduced cost and increased QALYs) and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations (i.e., either saved costs or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below $100,000/QALY). Conclusion: Our analysis showed that the use of PET/CT to stage early-stage FL patients reduces cost and improves QALYs. Patients with early-stage FL should undergo PET/CT before curative-intent RT.

Reassessing the operative threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the context of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The worldwide pandemic involving the novel respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) has forced health care systems to delay elective operations, including abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, to conserve resources. This study provides a structured analysis of the decision to delay AAA repair and quantify the potential for harm. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed modeling immediate repair of AAA relative to an initial nonoperative (delayed repair) approach. Risks of COVID-19 contraction and mortality, aneurysm rupture, and operative mortality were considered. A deterministic sensitivity analysis for a range of patient ages (50 to >80), probability of COVID-19 infection (0.01%-30%), aneurysm size (5.5 to >7 cm), and time horizons (3-9 months) was performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted for three representative ages (60, 70, and 80). Analyses were conducted for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR). RESULTS: Patients with aneurysms 7 cm or greater demonstrated a higher probability of survival when treated with immediate EVAR or OSR, compared with delayed repair, for patients under 80 years of age. When considering EVAR for aneurysms 5.5 to 6.9 cm, immediate repair had a higher probability of survival except in settings with a high probability of COVID-19 infection (10%-30%) and advanced age (70-85+ years). A nonoperative strategy maximized the probability of survival as patient age or operative risk increased. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that patients with large aneurysms (>7 cm) faced a 5.4% to 7.7% absolute increase in the probability of mortality with a delay of repair of 3 months. Young patients (60-70 years) with aneurysms 6 to 6.9 cm demonstrated an elevated risk of mortality (1.5%-1.9%) with a delay of 3 months. Those with aneurysms 5 to 5.9 cm demonstrated an increased survival with immediate repair in young patients (60); however, this was small in magnitude (0.2%-0.8%). The potential for harm increased as the length of surgical delay increased. For elderly patients requiring OSR, in the context of endemic COVID-19, delay of repair improves the probability of survival. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to delay operative repair of AAA should consider both patient age and local COVID-19 prevalence in addition to aneurysm size. EVAR should be considered when possible due to a reduced risk of harm and lower resource utilization.

Public Health System Research in Public Health Emergency Preparedness in the United States (2009-2015): Actionable Knowledge Base.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Institute of Medicine released a letter report identifying 4 research priority areas for public health emergency preparedness in public health system research: (1) enhancing the usefulness of training, (2) improving timely emergency communications, (3) creating and maintaining sustainable response systems, and (4) generating effectiveness criteria and metrics. OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify and characterize public health system research in public health emergency preparedness produced in the United States from 2009 to 2015, (2) synthesize research findings and assess the level of confidence in these findings, and (3) describe the evolution of knowledge production in public health emergency preparedness system research. Search Methods and Selection Criteria. We reviewed and included the titles and abstracts of 1584 articles derived from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and gray literature databases that focused on the organizational or financial aspects of public health emergency preparedness activities and were grounded on empirical studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We included 156 articles. We appraised the quality of the studies according to the study design. We identified themes during article analysis and summarized overall findings by theme. We determined level of confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual tool. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one studies provided evidence on how to enhance the usefulness of training. Results demonstrated the utility of drills and exercises to enhance decision-making capabilities and coordination across organizations, the benefit of cross-sector partnerships for successfully implementing training activities, and the value of integrating evaluation methods to support training improvement efforts. Thirty-six studies provided evidence on how to improve timely communications. Results supported the use of communication strategies that address differences in access to information, knowledge, attitudes, and practices across segments of the population as well as evidence on specific communication barriers experienced by public health and health care personnel. Forty-eight studies provided evidence on how to create and sustain preparedness systems. Results included how to build social capital across organizations and citizens and how to develop sustainable and useful planning efforts that maintain flexibility and rely on available medical data. Twenty-six studies provided evidence on the usefulness of measurement efforts, such as community and organizational needs assessments, and new methods to learn from the response to critical incidents. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, the field of public health emergency preparedness system research has been supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since the release of the 2008 Institute of Medicine letter report. The first definition of public health emergency preparedness appeared in 2007, and before 2008 there was a lack of research and empirical evidence across all 4 research areas identified by the Institute of Medicine. This field can be considered relatively new compared with other research areas in public health; for example, tobacco control research can rely on more than 70 years of knowledge production. However, this review demonstrates that, during the past 7 years, public health emergency preparedness system research has evolved from generic inquiry to the analysis of specific interventions with more empirical studies. Public Health Implications: The results of this review provide an evidence base for public health practitioners responsible for enhancing key components of preparedness and response such as communication, training, and planning efforts.

Use of Mini-Grant to Disseminate Evidence-Based Interventions for Cancer Prevention and Control.

Mini-grants are an increasingly common tool for engaging communities in evidence-based interventions for promoting public health. This article describes efforts by 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network centers to design and implement mini-grant programs to disseminate evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control. This article also describes source of evidence-based interventions, funding levels, selection criteria, time frame, number and size of grants, types of organizations funded, selected accomplishments, training and technical assistance, and evaluation topics/methods. Grant size ranged from $1000 to $10 000 (median = $6250). This mini-grant opportunity was characterized by its emphasis on training and technical assistance for evidence-based programming and dissemination of interventions from National Cancer Institute's Research-Tested Intervention Programs and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guide to Community Preventive Services. All projects had an evaluation component, although they varied in scope. Mini-grant processes described can serve as a model for organizations such as state health departments working to bridge the gap between research and practice.

Innovative and community-driven communication practices of the South Carolina cancer prevention and control research network.

The South Carolina Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (SC-CPCRN) is 1 of 10 networks funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that works to reduce cancer-related health disparities. In partnership with federally qualified health centers and community stakeholders, the SC-CPCRN uses evidence-based approaches (eg, NCI Research-tested Intervention Programs) to disseminate and implement cancer prevention and control messages, programs, and interventions. We describe the innovative stakeholder- and community-driven communication efforts conducted by the SC-CPCRN to improve overall health and reduce cancer-related health disparities among high-risk and disparate populations in South Carolina. We describe how our communication efforts are aligned with 5 core values recommended for dissemination and implementation science: 1) rigor and relevance, 2) efficiency and speed, 3) collaboration, 4) improved capacity, and 5) cumulative knowledge.

Findings from the Community Health Intervention Program in South Carolina: implications for reducing cancer-related health disparities.

The South Carolina Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (SC-CPCRN) implemented the Community Health Intervention Program (CHIP) mini-grants initiative to address cancer-related health disparities and reduce the cancer burden among high-risk populations across the state. The mini-grants project implemented evidence-based health interventions tailored to the specific needs of each community. This study aims to support the SC-CPCRN's goals of moving toward greater dissemination and implementation of evidence-based programs in the community to improve public health, prevent disease, and reduce the cancer burden. Three community-based organizations were awarded $10,000 each to implement one of the National Cancer Institute's evidence-based interventions. Each group had 12 months to complete their project. SC-CPCRN investigators and staff provided guidance, oversight, and technical assistance for each project. Grantees provided regular updates and reports to their SC-CPCRN liaisons to capture vital evaluation information. The intended CHIP mini-grant target population reach was projected to be up to 880 participants combined. Actual combined reach of the three projects reported upon completion totaled 1,072 individuals. The majority of CHIP participants were African-American females. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 81 years. Evaluation results showed an increase in physical activity, dietary improvements, and screening participation. The success of the initiative was the result of a strong community-university partnership built on trust. Active two-way communication and an honest open dialogue created an atmosphere for collaboration. Communities were highly motivated. All team members shared a common goal of reducing cancer-related health disparities and building greater public health capacity across the state.