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.

Negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressings following surgical treatment of major trauma to the lower limb: the WHiST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Major trauma is the leading cause of death in people aged < 45 years. Patients with major trauma usually have lower-limb fractures. Surgery to fix the fractures is complicated and the risk of infection may be as high as 27%. The type of dressing applied after surgery could potentially reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the deep surgical site infection rate, disability, quality of life, patient assessment of the surgical scar and resource use in patients with surgical incisions associated with fractures following major trauma to the lower limbs treated with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four specialist trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1548 adult patients were randomised from September 2016 to April 2018. Exclusion criteria included presentation > 72 hours after injury and inability to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 785), in which a non-adherent absorbent dressing covered with a semipermeable membrane is connected to a pump to create a partial vacuum over the wound, versus standard dressings not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Trial participants and the treating surgeon could not be blinded to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deep surgical site infection at 30 days was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were deep infection at 90 days, the results of the Disability Rating Index, health-related quality of life, the results of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and resource use collected at 3 and 6 months post surgery. RESULTS: A total of 98% of participants provided primary outcome data. There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection at 30 days. The infection rate was 6.7% (50/749) in the standard dressing group and 5.8% (45/770) in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (intention-to-treat odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.33; p = 0.52). There was no difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days: 13.2% in the standard dressing group and 11.4% in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.19; p = 0.32). There was no difference between the two groups in disability, quality of life or scar appearance at 3 or 6 months. Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy did not reduce the cost of treatment and was associated with a low probability of cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the emergency nature of the surgery, we anticipated that some patients who were randomised would subsequently be unable or unwilling to participate. However, the majority of the patients (85%) agreed to participate. Therefore, participants were representative of the population with lower-limb fractures associated with major trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to the lower limbs. FUTURE WORK: Our work suggests that the use of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy dressings in other at-risk surgical wounds requires further investigation. Future research may also investigate different approaches to reduce postoperative infections, for example the use of topical antibiotic preparations in surgical wounds and the role of orthopaedic implants with antimicrobial coatings when fixing the associated fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12702354 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio ID20416. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: We found no evidence of a difference in the rate of surgical site infection between those patients randomised to negative-pressure wound therapy and those patients randomised to standard wound dressings. There was no difference in the rate of other wound healing complications or in the patients' self-report of disability, health-related quality of life or scar healing. Negative-pressure wound therapy is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. In conclusion, and contrary to previous reports, the findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to their legs.

Major trauma is the leading cause of death worldwide in people aged < 45 years and a significant cause of short- and long-term health problems. In 85% of major trauma patients, the injury involves broken bones. Surgery to fix broken bones in the lower limbs is complicated and has risks, one of the main ones being wound infection. In these patients, rates of wound infection have been reported to be as high as 27%. One factor that may affect the risk of infection is the type of dressing applied after surgery. In this trial, we compared standard wound dressings with a new treatment called incisional negative-pressure wound therapy. Negative-pressure wound therapy is a special type of dressing whereby gentle suction is applied to the surface of the wound. A total of 1548 patients from 24 specialist trauma hospitals in the UK agreed to take part and were assigned at random to receive either a standard wound dressing or negative-pressure wound therapy after their surgery. We reviewed the recovery of the patients for 6 months. We recorded how many had an infection in the surgical wound and asked the patients to rate the extent of their disability, their quality of life and the scar healing. We also collected information about the cost of treatment.

Cost-utility analysis of standard dressing compared with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy among patients with closed surgical wounds following major trauma to the lower limb.

AIMS: To compare the cost-utility of standard dressing with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in adults with closed surgical wounds associated with major trauma to the lower limbs. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective based on data collected from the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) multicentre randomized clinical trial. Health resource utilization was collected over a six-month post-randomization period using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates while uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The incremental cost of standard dressing versus iNPWT over six months was £2,037 (95% confidence interval (CI) £349 to £3,724). There was an insignificant increment in QALYs gained in the iNPWT group (0.005, 95% CI -0.018 to 0.028). The probability of iNPWT being cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY was 1.9%. The results remained robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: The within-trial economic evaluation suggests that iNPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard dressing in adults with closed surgical wounds to their lower limbs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1072-1081.

Effect of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Wound Dressing on Deep Surgical Site Infection After Surgery for Lower Limb Fractures Associated With Major Trauma: The WHIST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Following surgery to treat major trauma-related fractures, deep wound infection rates are high. It is not known if negative pressure wound therapy can reduce infection rates in this setting. Objective: To assess outcomes in patients who have incisions resulting from surgery for lower limb fractures related to major trauma and were treated with either incisional negative pressure wound therapy or standard wound dressing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial conducted at 24 trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network that included 1548 patients aged 16 years or older who underwent surgery for a lower limb fracture caused by major trauma from July 7, 2016, through April 17, 2018, with follow-up to December 11, 2018. Interventions: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (n = 785), which involved a specialized dressing used to create negative pressure over the wound, vs standard wound dressing not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was deep surgical site infection at 30 days diagnosed according to the criteria from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A preplanned secondary analysis of the primary outcome was performed at 90 days. The secondary outcomes were patient-reported disability (Disability Rating Index), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5-level EQ-5D), surgical scar assessment (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale), and chronic pain (Douleur Neuropathique Questionnaire) at 3 and 6 months, as well as other local wound healing complications at 30 days. Results: Among 1548 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.8 [20.3] years; 561 [36%] were aged ≤40 years; 583 [38%] women; and 881 [57%] had multiple injuries), 1519 (98%) had data available for the primary outcome. At 30 days, deep surgical site infection occurred in 5.84% (45 of 770 patients) of the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group and in 6.68% (50 of 749 patients) of the standard wound dressing group (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.33]; absolute risk difference, -0.77% [95% CI, -3.19% to 1.66%]; P = .52). There was no significant difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days (11.4% [72 of 629 patients] in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group vs 13.2% [78 of 590 patients] in the standard wound dressing group; odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.19]; absolute risk difference, -1.76% [95% CI, -5.41% to 1.90%]; P = .32). For the 5 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, there were no significant differences at any time point. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who underwent surgery for major trauma-related lower limb fractures, use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy, compared with standard wound dressing, resulted in no significant difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection. The findings do not support the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in this setting, although the event rate at 30 days was lower than expected. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12702354.

Standard wound management versus negative-pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adult patients having surgical incisions for major trauma to the lower limb-a two-arm parallel group superiority randomised controlled trial: protocol for Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHIST).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with closed high-energy injuries associated with major trauma have surprisingly high rates of surgical site infection in incisions created during fracture fixation. One factor that may reduce the risk of surgical site infection is the type of dressing applied over the closed surgical incision. In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, negative-pressure wound therapy will be compared with standard dressings with outcomes of deep infection, quality of life, pain and disability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult patients presenting to hospital within 72 hours of sustaining major trauma, requiring a surgical incision to treat a fractured lower limb, are eligible for inclusion. Randomisation, stratified by trial centre, open/closed fracture at presentation and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤15 versus ISS ≥16 will be administered via a secure web-based service using minimisation. The random allocation will be to either standard wound management or negative-pressure wound therapy.Trial participants will usually have clinical follow-up at the local fracture clinic for a minimum of 6 months, as per standard National Health Service practice. Diagnosis of deep infection will be recorded at 30 days. Functional, pain and quality of life outcome data will be collected using the Disability Rating Index, Douleur Neuropathique Questionnaire and Euroqol - 5 Dimension - 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at 3 months and 6 months postinjury. Further data will be captured on resource use and any late postoperative complications.Longer term outcomes will be assessed annually for 5 years and reported separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Research Ethics Committee approved this study on 16 February 2016 16/WM/0006.The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment monograph and a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal will be submitted on completion of this trial. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatment of this injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12702354; Pre-results.

Approaches to sample size calculation for clinical trials in rare diseases.

We discuss 3 alternative approaches to sample size calculation: traditional sample size calculation based on power to show a statistically significant effect, sample size calculation based on assurance, and sample size based on a decision-theoretic approach. These approaches are compared head-to-head for clinical trial situations in rare diseases. Specifically, we consider 3 case studies of rare diseases (Lyell disease, adult-onset Still disease, and cystic fibrosis) with the aim to plan the sample size for an upcoming clinical trial. We outline in detail the reasonable choice of parameters for these approaches for each of the 3 case studies and calculate sample sizes. We stress that the influence of the input parameters needs to be investigated in all approaches and recommend investigating different sample size approaches before deciding finally on the trial size. Highly influencing for the sample size are choice of treatment effect parameter in all approaches and the parameter for the additional cost of the new treatment in the decision-theoretic approach. These should therefore be discussed extensively.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of screening and laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy and macular edema in Malawi.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the economic impact of introducing targeted screening and laser photocoagulation treatment for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and macular edema in a setting with no previous screening or laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy in sub-Saharan Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort Markov model was built to compare combined targeted screening and laser treatment for patients with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and macular edema against no intervention. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Primary data were collected on 357 participants from the Malawi Diabetic Retinopathy Study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Multiple scenarios were explored and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: In the base case (age: 50 years, service utilization rate: 80%), the cost of the intervention and the years of severe visual impairment averted per patient screened were $209 and 2.2 years respectively. Applying the World Health Organization threshold of cost-effectiveness for Malawi ($679), the base case was cost-effective when QALYs were used ($400 per QALY gained) but not when DALYs were used ($766 per DALY averted). The intervention was more cost-effective when it targeted younger patients (age: 30 years) and less cost-effective when the utilization rate was lowered to 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Annual photographic screening of diabetic patients attending medical diabetes clinics in Malawi, with the provision of laser treatment for those with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and macular edema, appears to be cost-effective in terms of QALYs gained, in our base case scenario. Cost-effectiveness improves if services are utilized more intensively and extended to younger patients.

Economic evaluation of a shortened standardised treatment regimen of antituberculosis drugs for patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) poses a serious financial challenge to health systems and patients. The current treatment for patients with MDR-TB takes up to 24 months to complete. Evidence for a shorter regimen which differs from the standard WHO recommended MDR-TB regimen and typically lasts between 9 and 12 months has been reported from Bangladesh. This evaluation aims to assess the economic impact of a shortened regimen on patients and health systems. This evaluation is innovative as it combines patient and health system costs, as well as operational modelling in assessing the impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An economic evaluation nested in a clinical trial with 2 arms will be performed at 4 facilities. The primary outcome measure is incremental cost to the health system of the study regimen compared with the control regimen. Secondary outcome measures are mean incremental costs incurred by patients by treatment outcome; patient costs by category (direct medical costs, transport, food and accommodation costs, and cost of guardians/accompanying persons and lost time); health systems cost by category and drugs; and costs related to serious adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been evaluated and approved by the Ethics Advisory Group of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; South African Medical Research Ethics Committee; Wits Health Consortium Protocol Review Committee; University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee; University of Kwazulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee; St Peter TB Specialized Hospital Ethical Review Committee; AHRI-ALERT Ethical Review Committee, and all participants will provide written informed consent. The results of the economic evaluation will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN78372190.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Upper Age Limits for Breast Cancer Screening in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Currently in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme invites all women for triennial mammography between the ages of 47 and 73 years (the extension to 47-50 and 70-73 years is currently examined as part of a randomized controlled trial). The benefits and harms of screening in women 70 years and older, however, are less well documented. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine whether extending screening to women older than 70 years would represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources and to identify the upper age limit at which screening mammography should be extended in England and Wales. METHODS: A mathematical model that allows the impact of screening policies on cancer diagnosis and subsequent management to be assessed was built. The model has two parts: a natural history model of the progression of breast cancer up to discovery and a postdiagnosis model of treatment, recurrence, and survival. The natural history model was calibrated to available data and compared against published literature. The management of breast cancer at diagnosis was taken from registry data and valued using official UK tariffs. RESULTS: The model estimated that screening would lead to overdiagnosis in 6.2% of screen-detected women at the age of 72 years, increasing up to 37.9% at the age of 90 years. Under commonly quoted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the United Kingdom, our study suggests that an extension to screening up to the age of 78 years represents a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides encouraging findings to support the extension of the screening program to older ages and suggests that further extension of the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme up to age 78 years beyond the current upper age limit of 73 years could be potentially cost-effective according to current NHS willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Accurate diagnosis of latent tuberculosis in children, people who are immunocompromised or at risk from immunosuppression and recent arrivals from countries with a high incidence of tuberculosis: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB), caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) [(Zopf 1883) Lehmann and Neumann 1896], is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Nearly one-third of the world's population is infected with MTB; TB has an annual incidence of 9 million new cases and each year causes 2 million deaths worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening tests [interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) and tuberculin skin tests (TSTs)] in latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) diagnosis to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline development for three population groups: children, immunocompromised people and those who have recently arrived in the UK from high-incidence countries. All of these groups are at higher risk of progression from LTBI to active TB. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Current Controlled Trials were searched from December 2009 up to December 2014. REVIEW METHODS: English-language studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of commercially available tests used for identifying LTBI in children, immunocompromised people and recent arrivals to the UK were eligible. Interventions were IGRAs [QuantiFERON(®)-TB Gold (QFT-G), QuantiFERON(®)-TB Gold-In-Tube (QFT-GIT) (Cellestis/Qiagen, Carnegie, VA, Australia) and T-SPOT.TB (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK)]. The comparator was TST 5 mm or 10 mm alone or with an IGRA. Two independent reviewers screened all identified records and undertook a quality assessment and data synthesis. A de novo model, structured in two stages, was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies. RESULTS: In total, 6687 records were screened, of which 53 unique studies were included (a further 37 studies were identified from a previous NICE guideline). The majority of the included studies compared the strength of association for the QFT-GIT/G IGRA with the TST (5 mm or 10 mm) in relation to the incidence of active TB or previous TB exposure. Ten studies reported evidence on decision-analytic models to determine the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs compared with the TST for LTBI diagnosis. In children, TST (≥ 5 mm) negative followed by QFT-GIT was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In immunocompromised people, QFT-GIT negative followed by the TST (≥ 5 mm) was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of approximately £18,700 per QALY gained. In those recently arrived from high TB incidence countries, the TST (≥ 5 mm) alone was less costly and more effective than TST (≥ 5 mm) positive followed by QFT-GIT or T-SPOT.TB or QFT-GIT alone. LIMITATIONS: The limitations and scarcity of the evidence, variation in the exposure-based definitions of LTBI and heterogeneity in IGRA performance relative to TST limit the applicability of the review findings. CONCLUSIONS: Given the current evidence, TST (≥ 5 mm) negative followed by QFT-GIT for children, QFT-GIT negative followed by TST (≥ 5 mm) for the immunocompromised population and TST (≥ 5 mm) for recent arrivals were the most cost-effective strategies for diagnosing LTBI that progresses to active TB. These results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations identified. The evidence available is limited and more high-quality research in this area is needed including studies on the inconsistent performance of tests in high-compared with low-incidence TB settings; the prospective assessment of progression to active TB for those at high risk; the relative benefits of two-compared with one-step testing with different tests; and improved classification of people at high and low risk for LTBI. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009033. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Economic evaluation of the practical approach to lung health and informal provider interventions for improving the detection of tuberculosis and chronic airways disease at primary care level in Malawi: study protocol for cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic airway diseases pose a big challenge to health systems in most developing countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. A diagnosis for people with chronic or persistent cough is usually delayed because of individual and health system barriers. However, delayed diagnosis and treatment facilitates further transmission, severity of disease with complications and mortality. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the practical approach to lung health strategy, a patient-centred approach for diagnosis and treatment of common respiratory illnesses in primary healthcare settings, as a means of strengthening health systems to improve the quality of management of respiratory diseases. METHODS/DESIGN: Economic evaluation nested in a cluster randomised controlled trial with three arms will be performed. Measures of effectiveness and costs for all arms of the study will be obtained from the cluster randomised controlled clinical trial. The main outcome measures are a combined rate of major respiratory diseases milestones and process indicators extracted from the practical approach to lung health strategy. For analysis, descriptive as well as regression techniques will be used. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed according to intention-to-treat principle and from a societal perspective. Cost-effectiveness ratios will be calculated using bootstrapping techniques. DISCUSSION: We hope to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the practical approach to lung health and informal healthcare providers, see an improvement in patients' quality of life, achieve a reduction in the duration and occurrence of episodes and the chronicity of respiratory diseases, and are able to report a decrease in the social cost. If the practical approach to lung health and informal healthcare provider's interventions are cost-effective, they could be scaled up to all primary healthcare centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACTR: PACTR201411000910192.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

Are head-to-head trials of biologics needed? The role of value of information methods in arthritis research.

Reimbursement decisions are typically based on cost-effectiveness analyses. While a cost-effectiveness analysis can identify the optimum strategy, there is usually some degree of uncertainty around this decision. Sources of uncertainty include statistical sampling error in treatment efficacy measures, underlying baseline risk, utility measures and costs, as well as uncertainty in the structure of the model. The optimal strategy is therefore only optimal on average, and a decision to adopt this strategy might still be the wrong decision if all uncertainty could be eliminated. This means that there is a quantifiable expected (average) loss attaching to decisions made under uncertainty, and hence a value in collecting information to reduce that uncertainty. Value of information (VOI) analyses can be used to provide guidance on whether more research would be cost-effective, which particular model inputs (parameters) have the most bearing on decision uncertainty, and can also help with the design and sample size of further research. Here, we introduce the key concepts in VOI analyses, and highlight the inputs required to calculate it. The adoption of the new biologic treatments for RA and PsA tends to be based on placebo-controlled trials. We discuss the possible role of VOI analyses in deciding whether head-to-head comparisons of the biologic therapies should be carried out, illustrating with examples from other fields. We emphasize the need for a model of the natural history of RA and PsA, which reflects a consensus view.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modeled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20K per quality-adjusted life year gained and also using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30K and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price.

A rapid-response economic evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy breast cancer screening program extension via a plausible bounds approach.

OBJECTIVES: The 2007 National Health Service Cancer Reform Strategy includes a proposed extension of the UK breast screening program to women aged 47 to 49 years. The aim of this study is to undertake a preliminary assessment of this proposal to identify the key factors determining its cost-effectiveness and to determine whether there is sufficient uncertainty that requires more thorough analyses. METHODS: An economic model was constructed. For simplicity, the health impact of screening was estimated by calculating the lives saved through shifts in prognostic group. A "plausible bounds" approach was used to derive distributions for model parameters for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. UK data were used to populate the model. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of the extension is estimated to be pound27,400 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with a 29% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of pound20,000 per QALY. The deterministic estimate of benefit becomes negative if the anxiety due to a false-positive result is set at 0.028 QALYs. Including a small positive benefit from a negative screen has a dramatic impact on the cost-effectiveness of screening. The impact of other factors appears less marked. CONCLUSIONS: Because the vast majority of women aged 47 to 49 years will test negative when screened for breast cancer and most of those who test positive will actually be free of the disease, the psychological impacts of screening are likely to drive cost-effectiveness for this age group. Therefore, a research priority should be to better understand and quantify these effects.

Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) compared to best supportive care in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using a state transition model of disease natural history and the impact of DMTs for the representative Medicare beneficiary with MS. Costs and outcomes were evaluated from the health-care payer perspective using a 50-year time horizon. Natural history data were drawn from a longitudinal cohort study. The effectiveness of the DMTs was evaluated through a systematic review. Utility data were taken from a study of patients with clinically definite MS in Nova Scotia. Resource use and cost data were derived from the Sonya Slifka database and associated literature. RESULTS: When based on placebo-controlled evidence, the marginal cost-effectiveness of interferon beta (IFNß) and glatiramer acetate compared to best supportive care is expected to be in excess of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. When evidence from head-to-head trials is incorporated into the model, the cost-effectiveness of 6 MIU IFNß-1a is expected to be considerably less favorable. Treatment discontinuation upon progression to Expanded Disability Status Scale 7.0 is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of all DMTs. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required to examine the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. There is no definitive guidance in the United States concerning discontinuation of DMTs; this study suggests that the prudent use of a treatment discontinuation rule may considerably improve the cost-effectiveness of DMTs.

Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA.

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) is required to account for uncertainty in cost-effectiveness calculations arising from health economic models. The simplest way to perform PSA in practice is by Monte Carlo methods, which involves running the model many times using randomly sampled values of the model inputs. However, this can be impractical when the economic model takes appreciable amounts of time to run. This situation arises, in particular, for patient-level simulation models (also known as micro-simulation or individual-level simulation models), where a single run of the model simulates the health care of many thousands of individual patients. The large number of patients required in each run to achieve accurate estimation of cost-effectiveness means that only a relatively small number of runs is possible. For this reason, it is often said that PSA is not practical for patient-level models. We develop a way to reduce the computational burden of Monte Carlo PSA for patient-level models, based on the algebra of analysis of variance. Methods are presented to estimate the mean and variance of the model output, with formulae for determining optimal sample sizes. The methods are simple to apply and will typically reduce the computational demand very substantially.