Economic evaluations of nonpharmacological treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review.

This study was undertaken to systematically identify and critically appraise all published full economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study criteria was used to design search strategies for the identification and selection of relevant studies. Literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, International Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases to identify articles published between January 2000 and May 2023. Web of Science was additionally used to perform forward and backward referencing. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were applied for quality assessment. A total of 4470 studies were identified, of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies conducted model-based economic evaluation, and others were trial-based. Three studies showed that epilepsy surgery was cost-effective in adults, whereas this remained inconclusive for children (two positive, three negative). Three studies showed negative economic outcome for ketogenic diet in children. One of four studies showed positive results for self-management. For vagus nerve stimulation, one study showed positive results in adults and another one negative results in children. One recent study showed cost-effectiveness of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in adults. Finally, one study showed promising but inconclusive results for deep brain stimulation (DBS). The mean scores for risk of bias assessment (based on CHEC) and for reporting quality (CHEERS 2022) were 95.8% and 80.5%, respectively. This review identified studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatments in both adults and children with drug-resistant epilepsy, suggesting that in adults, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and RNS are cost-effective, and that DBS and self-management appear to be promising. In children, the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery remains inconclusive. Finally, the use of ketogenic diet was shown not to be cost-effective. However, limited long-term data were available for newer interventions (i.e., ketogenic diet, DBS, and RNS).

Mogamulizumab for Previously Treated Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Kyowa Kirin) of mogamulizumab (Poteligeo®), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness for previously treated mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. Based on a systematic literature review, one randomised controlled trial, MAVORIC, was identified showing favourable results in patients with MF and SS. However, MAVORIC compared mogamulizumab to vorinostat, which is not standard care in the NHS, and there is uncertainty due to the study design, specifically crossover of patients. Based on a "naïve comparison of results from the vorinostat arm of the MAVORIC study and the physician's choice arm (methotrexate or bexarotene i.e. United Kingdom [UK] standard treatments) of the ALCANZA study as well as comparison to Phase II bexarotene data", the company considered vorinostat to be "a reasonable proxy for current standard of care in the NHS". The ERG considered, based on the limited data available, that the comparability of vorinostat (MAVORIC) and physician's choice (ALCANZA) could not be established. In response to the Appraisal Consultation Document, the company provided an unanchored matched adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of mogamulizumab with UK standard care by analysing Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. However, given the high risk of bias of an unanchored MAIC, these results needed to be regarded with a considerable degree of caution. The economic analysis suffered from uncertainty because there was no trial evidence on the comparator in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), and it was unclear to what extent the trial (MAVORIC) comparator (vorinostat) was comparable to standard care, referred to as established clinical management (ECM) in the NHS. The evidence for overall survival had not reached maturity and was confounded by treatment switching, for which different crossover adjustment methods produced large variations in life years. Caregiver utilities were applied in the analysis, but there was a lack of guidance on their application and whether these were indicated in this appraisal. After consultation, the company updated the economic analysis with the MAIC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing mogamulizumab against ECM were (depending on whether the HES or MAVORIC comparison were used) £31,030 or £32,634 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained according to the company's base case and £38,274 or £80,555 per QALY gained according to the ERG's base case. NICE did not recommend mogamulizumab for treating MF or SS in adults who have had at least one previous systemic treatment. This decision was subsequently appealed, and an appeal decision has been reached.

Prevalence of adjustment disorder among cancer patients, and the reach, effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact of tailored psychological treatment: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Information on the prevalence of adjustment disorders among cancer patients and the value of psychological interventions in this group of patients is limited. This study investigates the prevalence of adjustment disorders among cancer patients as well as the reach, effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact of a tailored psychological intervention. METHOD: This study consists of two parts. Part 1 is an observational study among a representative group of mixed cancer patients after cancer treatment on the prevalence of adjustment disorder as well as the uptake (i.e. reach) of psychological treatment. In Part 2, patients diagnosed with an adjustment disorder are invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Patients will be randomized to the intervention (access to the tailored psychological intervention) or control group (waitlist period of 6 months). The psychological intervention consists of three modules: one module containing psycho-education (3 sessions, all patients) and two additional modules (maximum of 6 sessions per module) provided as continuum, in case needed. Module 2 and 3 can consist of several evidence-based interventions (e.g. group interventions, mindfulness, eHealth) The primary outcome is psychological distress (HADS). Secondary outcomes are mental adjustment to cancer (MAC) and health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30). To assess the cost-utility and budget impact, quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and costs (iMCQ and iPCQ) will be measured. Measures will be completed at baseline and 3 and 6-months after randomization. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data of the prevalence of adjustment disorders and the reach, effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact of a tailored psychological intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register identifier: NL7763. Registered on 3 June 2019.

A discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for HIV testing programs in Bogotá, Colombia.

BACKGROUND: To assess patients' preferences for HIV testing in Colombia. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used to assess preferences of patients diagnosed with HIV, for HIV testing in two HIV clinics in Bogotá, Colombia. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical HIV testing options that varied with respect to five attributes: distance to testing site, confidentiality, testing days, sample collection method, and the services if HIV positive. A random parameter model was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 249 questionnaires were eligible for data analysis. Respondents showed a preference for testing on weekdays, nobody being aware, a sample taken from the arm, and receiving medications through a referral. The respondents showed a high negative preference for many people being aware, followed by testing during the weekend and home testing. Subgroup analyses by gender and prior testing history did not reveal significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that patients' preferences for HIV testing focused especially on confidentiality, availability during weekdays, and using a sample from the arm. This information could be useful to improve uptake of HIV testing in Bogotá, Colombia.

Is it cost-effective to provide internet-based interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services in the Netherlands? An analysis based on the EQUIPTMOD.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The cost-effectiveness of internet-based smoking cessation interventions is difficult to determine when they are provided as a complement to current smoking cessation services. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of such an alternate package compared with existing smoking cessation services alone (current package). METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify internet-based smoking cessation interventions in the Netherlands. A meta-analysis was then performed to determine the pooled effectiveness of a (web-based) computer-tailored intervention. The mean cost of implementing internet based interventions was calculated using available information, while intervention reach was sourced from an English study. We used EQUIPTMOD, a Markov-based state-transition model, to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained] for different time horizons to assess the value of providing internet-based interventions to complement the current package.). Deterministic sensitivity analyses tested the uncertainty around intervention costs per smoker, relative risks, and the intervention reach. RESULTS: Internet-based interventions had an estimated pooled relative risk of 1.40; average costs per smoker of €2.71; and a reach of 0.41% of all smokers. The alternate package (i.e. provision of internet-based intervention to the current package) was dominant (cost-saving) compared with the current package alone (0.14 QALY gained per 1000 smokers; reduced health-care costs of €602.91 per 1000 smokers for the life-time horizon). The alternate package remained dominant in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Providing internet-based smoking cessation interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services could be a cost-saving policy option in the Netherlands.

A Review of the Theoretical Basis, Effects, and Cost Effectiveness of Online Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Netherlands: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is a worldwide public health problem. In 2015, 26.3% of the Dutch population aged 18 years and older smoked, 74.4% of them daily. More and more people have access to the Internet worldwide; approximately 94% of the Dutch population have online access. Internet-based smoking cessation interventions (online cessation interventions) provide an opportunity to tackle the scourge of tobacco. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper was to provide an overview of online cessation interventions in the Netherlands, while exploring their effectivity, cost effectiveness, and theoretical basis. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to identify Dutch online cessation interventions, using (1) a scientific literature search, (2) a grey literature search, and (3) expert input. For the scientific literature, the Cochrane review was used and updated by two independent researchers (n=651 identified studies), screening titles, abstracts, and then full-text studies between 2013 and 2016 (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). For the grey literature, the researchers conducted a Google search (n=100 websites), screening for titles and first pages. Including expert input, this resulted in six interventions identified in the scientific literature and 39 interventions via the grey literature. Extracted data included effectiveness, cost effectiveness, theoretical factors, and behavior change techniques used. RESULTS: Overall, many interventions (45 identified) were offered. Of the 45 that we identified, only six that were included in trials provided data on effectiveness. Four of these were shown to be effective and cost effective. In the scientific literature, 83% (5/6) of these interventions included changing attitudes, providing social support, increasing self-efficacy, motivating smokers to make concrete action plans to prepare their attempts to quit and to cope with challenges, supporting identity change and advising on changing routines, coping, and medication use. In all, 50% (3/6) of the interventions included a reward for abstinence. Interventions identified in the grey literature were less consistent, with inclusion of each theoretical factor ranging from 31% to 67% and of each behavior change technique ranging from 28% to 54%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Internet may provide the opportunity to offer various smoking cessation programs, the user is left bewildered as far as efficacy is concerned, as most of these data are not available nor offered to the smokers. Clear regulations about the effectiveness of these interventions need to be devised to avoid disappointment and failed quitting attempts. Thus, there is a need for policy regulations to regulate the proliferation of these interventions and to foster their quality in the Netherlands.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy.

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."