The effect of a financial incentive on COVID-19 vaccination uptake, and predictors of uptake, in people experiencing homelessness: A randomized controlled trial.

People who are homeless are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection, and of poorer associated outcomes. Delivering vaccinations to, and ensuring uptake of multiple doses in, people who are homeless is complex. Financial incentives may improve vaccination uptake, particularly in people who have not received routine vaccinations previously, though evidence about the effect of incentives is limited and variable. This randomized controlled trial (ANZCTR 383156) assessed the effect of a financial incentive (an A$10 grocery voucher) on uptake of the second COVID-19 vaccination in Australian adults who were homeless, and who had received their first dose. Participants were recruited through a vaccination program for people experiencing homelessness between September 2021 and January 2022. They were followed-up for a minimum of 6.5 months. Uptake was measured 'on-time' at 6 weeks, and at any time during the trial period. Vaccination status was checked on the Australian Immunisation Register. Demographic and vaccination program characteristics associated with uptake were also investigated. Eighty-six people consented to participate, and 43 were randomly allocated to each of the 'incentive' and 'no incentive' groups. The incentive slightly increased the likelihood of a participant receiving a second vaccination on-time (risk difference (RD), 11.6 % [95 %CI, -9.0, 32.2 %]; p = 0.27), and at any time during the trial (RD, 14.0 % [95 %CI, -2.2, 30.1 %], p = 0.09). The incentive had a significant positive effect on uptake in people with no previous vaccination history, increasing their likelihood of receiving a second vaccination on-time (RD, 42.3 % [95 %CI, 15.7, 68.8 %]; p = 0.002) and at any time during the trial (RD, 38.7 % [95 %CI, 16.1, 61.3 %], p < 0.001). Financial incentives may increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake in people who are homeless, and particularly those who have no previous vaccination history. Future research should consider alternative incentive values, types, and cost-effectiveness.

The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation.

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie's Mission­the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie's Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.

A comprehensive review of economic evaluations of therapeutic drug monitoring interventions for cancer treatments.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of cancer drugs has been shown to improve treatment effectiveness and safety. The aim of this paper was to comprehensively review economic evaluations of TDM interventions for cancer drugs. Searches were conducted in 4 electronic databases, Medline, EMBASE, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database), from their inception to June 2019. Studies were included if they were economic evaluations of TDM interventions for an active cancer treatment. The quality of reporting of economic evaluations was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS checklist). Of the 11 publications identified, imatinib with TDM and 5-fluorouracil with TDM were the most commonly assessed interventions (4 publications each). Overall study quality was good, with publications meeting 61 to 91% (median 80%) of CHEERS checklist criteria. A variety of studies were used to estimate the clinical effectiveness inputs for the cost effectiveness models. All publications considered TDM to be cost-effective based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the willingness to pay threshold (64%) or being cost-saving (36%). TDM interventions were considered cost-effective across the economic evaluations. Further clinical research assessing the impact of TDM on overall survival or other long-term health outcomes may enhance the evidence base for TDM in oncology. Future economic evaluations of TDM should explicitly consider uncertainty in the underlying clinical evidence and incorporate changes in the use of newer targeted drugs that form the current standard of care.

The cost-effectiveness of oral health interventions: A systematic review of cost-utility analyses.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the usage of cost-utility analysis (CUA) in oral health interventions and to evaluate the methods used and the reporting quality of CUA in publications on oral health interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on literature published between 2000 and 2016 where cost-utility analyses of oral health interventions were included. The reporting quality of these oral health CUAs was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Of the 6637 publications identified initially, 23 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 (61%) had been published in the last 6 years. Included studies were on oral cancer (n = 6), provision of dental prosthesis (n = 6), dental caries (n = 4), periodontal diseases (n = 3), antibiotic prophylaxis (n = 2), dento-facial anomalies (n = 1) and dental service provision (n = 1). Twenty-one studies were able to identify the most cost-effective intervention among the different options compared. Of the 23 studies identified, 15 (65%) used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) as the outcome measure, and 18 (78%) reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The economic perspective was clearly stated in 13 articles (57%). Twenty studies (87%) reported the discount rate, and 22 (96%) undertook sensitivity analysis. The reporting quality of studies, appraised by the CHEERS checklist, varied from 75% to 100% (median 92%). CONCLUSION: The use of CUAs in evaluation of oral health interventions has been increasing recently, especially from 2011 to 2016. The majority of CUA articles were of good reporting quality as assessed by the CHEERS checklist and were able to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective intervention among the different options compared: this will assist in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation. These positive outcomes of our study encourage wider use of CUAs within the dental and oral health professions.

Cost-effectiveness of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry plus antiresorptive treatment in Australian women with breast cancer who receive aromatase inhibitors.

Postmenopausal women with breast cancer on aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment are at increased risk of bone mineral density loss, which may lead to minimal trauma fractures. We examined the cost-effectiveness of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with antiresorptive (AR) therapy compared with fracture risk assessment, lifestyle advice, and vitamin supplementation. We used a hypothetical Markov cohort model of lifetime duration for 60-year-old women with early stage breast cancer receiving AIs. The data to inform the model came from medical literature, epidemiological reports, and costing data sets. Two eligibility scenarios for AR therapy were considered: (A) osteoporosis and (B) osteopenia or osteoporosis. The main outcomes were incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained and cumulative fractures per 1000 women, calculated relative to the comparator. Key aspects of the model were explored in sensitivity analyses. Due to relatively low effectiveness gains, the outcomes were primarily driven by the costs. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was A$47,556 and A$253,000 for scenarios A and B, respectively. The numbers of fractures avoided were 56 and 77 per 1000 women, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the initial probability of osteoporosis, baseline risk of fracture, and cohort starting age. Compared with risk assessment and lifestyle advice only, a DXA scan followed by an AR treatment is potentially cost-effective for women aged 60 and over undergoing AI therapy for early breast cancer. However, the number of fractures averted through this intervention is small.