The predicted impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing of people with incident colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) in people with incident colorectal cancer (CRC) in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We investigated the impact of LS testing strategies in a micro-simulation model (Policy1-Lynch), explicitly modelling the cost of testing all patients diagnosed with incident CRC during 2017, with detailed modelling of outcomes for patients identified as LS carriers (probands) and their at-risk relatives throughout their lifetimes. For people with confirmed LS, we modelled ongoing colonoscopic surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness of six universal tumour testing strategies (testing for DNA mismatch repair deficiencies) and of universal germline gene panel testing of patients with incident CRC; impact on cost-effectiveness of restricting testing by age at CRC diagnosis (all ages, under 50/60/70 years) and of colonoscopic surveillance interval (one, two years). RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio of universal tumour testing strategies (annual colonoscopic surveillance, no testing age limit) compared with no testing ranged from $28 915 to $31 904/life-year saved (LYS) (indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: $30 000-$50 000/LYS). These strategies could avert 184-189 CRC deaths with an additional 30 597-31 084 colonoscopies over the lifetimes of 1000 patients with incident CRC with LS and 1420 confirmed LS carrier relatives (164-166 additional colonoscopies/death averted). The most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $28 915/LYS). Universal germline gene panel testing was not cost-effective compared with universal tumour testing strategies (ICER, $2.4 million/LYS). Immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing was cost-effective at all age limits when paired with 2-yearly colonoscopic surveillance (ICER, $11 525-$32 153/LYS), and required 4778-15 860 additional colonoscopies to avert 46-181 CRC deaths (88-103 additional colonoscopies/death averted). CONCLUSIONS: Universal tumour testing strategies for guiding germline genetic testing of people with incident CRC for LS in Australia are likely to be cost-effective compared with no testing. Universal germline gene panel testing would not currently be cost-effective.

Cost-utility of COBRA-light versus COBRA therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the COBRA-light trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if COmbinatie therapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy is cost-effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with COBRA therapy. METHODS: This economic evaluation was performed next to the open-label, randomised non-inferiority COBRA-light trial in 164 patients with early RA. Non-responders to COBRA or COBRA-light received etanercept (50 mg/week) for 3-6 months. The societal perspective analysis took medical direct, non-medical direct and indirect costs into account. Costs were measured with patient cost diaries for the follow-up period of 52 weeks. Bootstrapping techniques estimated uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios, presented in cost-effectiveness planes. RESULTS: 164 patients were randomised to either COBRA or COBRA-light strategy. At week 52, COBRA-light proved to be non-inferior to COBRA therapy on all clinical outcome measures. The results of the base-case cost-utility analysis (intention-to-treat analyses) revealed that COBRA-light strategy is more expensive (k€9.3 (SD 0.9) compared with COBRA (k€7.2 (SD 0.8)), but the difference in costs were not significant (k€2.0; 95% CI -0.3 to 4.4). Also, both strategies produced similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. In a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, in which costs of etanercept were assumed to be provided as prescribed according to protocol, both arms had much higher costs: COBRA-light: k€11.5 (8.3) compared with k€8.5 (6.8) for COBRA, and the difference in costs was significant (k€2.9; 0.6 to 5.3). CONCLUSIONS: In the base-case cost-utility analysis, the two strategies produced similar QALYs for similar costs. But it is anticipated that if protocol had been followed correctly, the COBRA-light strategy would have been more costly due to additional etanercept costs, for a limited health gain. Given the limited added benefit and high costs of starting etanercept in the presence of low disease activity in our trial, such a strategy needs better justification than is available now. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 55552928, Results.

Cost-effectiveness of response evaluation after chemoradiation in patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer using 18F-FDG-PET-CT and/or diffusion-weighted MRI.

BACKGROUND: Considerable variation exists in diagnostic tests used for local response evaluation after chemoradiation in patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer. The yield of invasive examination under general anesthesia (EUA) with biopsies in all patients is low and it may induce substantial morbidity. We explored four response evaluation strategies to detect local residual disease in terms of diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We built a decision-analytic model using trial data of forty-six patients and scientific literature. We estimated for four strategies the proportion of correct diagnoses, costs concerning diagnostic instruments and the proportion of unnecessary EUA indications. Besides a reference strategy, i.e. EUA for all patients, we considered three imaging strategies consisting of 18FDG-PET-CT, diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), or both 18FDG-PET-CT and DW-MRI followed by EUA after a positive test. The impact of uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The EUA strategy led to 96% correct diagnoses. Expected costs were €468 per patient whereas 89% of EUA indications were unnecessary. The DW-MRI strategy was the least costly strategy, but also led to the lowest proportion of correct diagnoses, i.e. 93%. The PET-CT strategy and combined imaging strategy were dominated by the EUA strategy due to respectively a smaller or equal proportion of correct diagnoses, at higher costs. However, the combination of PET-CT and DW-MRI had the highest sensitivity. All imaging strategies considerably reduced (unnecessary) EUA indications and its associated burden compared to the EUA strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Because the combined PET-CT and DW-MRI strategy costs only an additional €927 per patient, it is preferred over immediate EUA since it reaches the same diagnostic accuracy in detecting local residual disease while leading to substantially less unnecessary EUA indications. However, if healthcare resources are limited, DW-MRI is the strategy of choice because of lower costs while still providing a large reduction in unnecessary EUA indications.

Next-generation sequencing in NSCLC and melanoma patients: a cost and budget impact analysis.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has reached the molecular diagnostic laboratories. Although the NGS technology aims to improve the effectiveness of therapies by selecting the most promising therapy, concerns are that NGS testing is expensive and that the 'benefits' are not yet in relation to these costs. In this study, we give an estimation of the costs and an institutional and national budget impact of various types of NGS tests in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma patients within The Netherlands. First, an activity-based costing (ABC) analysis has been conducted on the costs of two examples of NGS panels (small- and medium-targeted gene panel (TGP)) based on data of The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). Second, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) to estimate the current (2015) and future (2020) budget impact of NGS on molecular diagnostics for NSCLC and melanoma patients in The Netherlands. Literature, expert opinions, and a data set of patients within the NKI (n = 172) have been included in the BIA. Based on our analysis, we expect that the NGS test cost concerns will be limited. In the current situation, NGS can indeed result in higher diagnostic test costs, which is mainly related to required additional tests besides the small TGP. However, in the future, we expect that the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) will increase, for which it is expected that additional tests can be (partly) avoided. Although the current clinical benefits are expected to be limited, the research potentials of NGS are already an important advantage.

Study protocol: Cost effectiveness of two strategies to implement the NVOG guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy: An innovative strategy including a computerised decision support system compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disease in pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal mortality in the Netherlands. Seventeen percent of the clinical pregnancies are complicated by hypertension and 2% by preeclampsia. The Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG) has developed evidence-based guidelines on the management of hypertension in pregnancy and chronic hypertension. Previous studies showed a low adherence rate to other NVOG guidelines and a large variation in usual care in the different hospitals. An explanation is that the NVOG has no general strategy of practical implementation and evaluation of its guidelines. The development of an effective and cost effective implementation strategy to improve adherence to the guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy is needed. METHODS/DESIGN: The objective of this study is to assess the cost effectiveness of an innovative implementation strategy of the NVOG guidelines on hypertension including a computerised decision support system (BOS) compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside will be performed. Both pregnant women who develop severe hypertension or pre-eclampsia and professionals involved in the care for these women will participate. The main outcome measures are a combined rate of major maternal complications and process indicators extracted from the guidelines. A total of 472 patients will be included in both groups. For analysis, descriptive as well as regression techniques will be used. A cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle and from a societal perspective. Cost effectiveness ratios will be calculated using bootstrapping techniques.

Cost-effectiveness of the SEN-concept: Specialized Emergency Nurses (SEN) treating ankle/foot injuries.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (EDs) are confronted with progressive overcrowding. As a consequence, the workload for ED physicians increases and waiting times go up with the risk of unnecessary complications and patient dissatisfaction. To cope with these problems, Specialized Emergency Nurses (SENs), regular ED-nurses receiving a short, injury-specific course, were trained to assess and treat minor injuries according to a specific protocol. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing House Officers (HOs) and SENs in their assessment of ankle and foot injuries. Cost prices were established for all parts of healthcare utilization involved. Total costs of health care utilization were computed per patient in both groups. Cost-effectiveness was investigated by comparing the difference in total cost between groups with the difference in sensitivity and specificity between groups in diagnosing fractures and severe sprains. Finally, cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and presented on a cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between treatment groups for any of the health care resources assessed. However, the waiting times for both first assessment by a treatment officer and time spent waiting between hearing the diagnosis and final treatment were significantly longer in the HO group. There was no statistically significant difference in costs between groups. The total costs were euro 186 (SD euro 623) for patients in the SEN group and euro 153 (SD euro 529) for patients in the HO group. The difference in total costs was euro 33 (95% CI: - euro 84 to euro 155). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro 27 for a reduction of one missed diagnosis and euro 18 for a reduction of one false negative. CONCLUSION: Considering the benefits of the SEN-concept in terms of decreased workload for the ED physicians, increased patient satisfaction and decreased waiting times, SENs appear to be a useful solution to the problem of ED crowding.