Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool in patients with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure: A pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands. METHODS: The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients' activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately. RESULTS: We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089-0.687; p = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A. CONCLUSION: Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients' activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool aims to support disease management for one or multiple chronic condition(s), currently COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure.Statistically significant differences in patients' perceived quality of care and patient activation were found between the group that used the ABCC-tool and the care-as-usual group. No effect was found on generic quality of life or capability well-being.Healthcare providers can use the ABCC-tool in primary care.

Cost of illness of patients with small fiber neuropathy in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT: Neuropathic pain is associated with substantial healthcare costs. However, cost-of-illness studies of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) are scarce. Our aim was to estimate the healthcare, patient and family, and productivity costs of patients with SFN in the Netherlands from a healthcare and societal perspective. In addition, the association of costs with age, pain impact on daily life, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (Qol) were examined. Cost questionnaires were completed by 156 patients with confirmed SFN. The average annual total health care and societal cost (€, 2020) was calculated at patient, SFN adult population, and societal level. The average annual healthcare, patient and family, and productivity costs per patient with a Pain Impact Numerical Rating Scale of 0 to 3 (mild), 4 to 6 (moderate), and 7 to 10 (severe) were calculated by using the cost questionnaire data. Quality of life was determined by the EuroQol 5D utility scores. Anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Associations of all costs were analyzed using linear regression analyses. At the patient level, the average annual SFN healthcare and societal cost of SFN was €3614 (95% confidence interval [CI] €3171-€4072) and €17,871 (95% CI €14,395-€21,480). At the SFN population level, the average healthcare costs were €29.8 (CI €26.4-€34.2) million, and on a societal level, these were €147.7 (CI 120.5-176.3) million. Severe pain was associated with significant lower Qol and higher depression scores, higher healthcare, patient and family, and productivity costs ( P < 0.001).

The added value of risk assessment and subsequent targeted treatment for epileptic seizures after stroke: An early-HTA analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The development of post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is related to a worse clinical outcome in stroke patients. Adding a biomarker to the clinical diagnostic process for the prediction of PSE may help to establish targeted and personalized treatment for high-risk patients, which could lead to improved patient outcomes. We assessed the added value of a risk assessment and subsequent targeted treatment by conducting an early Health Technology Assessment. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with four relevant stakeholders in the field of PSE to obtain a realistic view of the current healthcare and their opinions on the potential value of a PSE risk assessment and subsequent targeted treatment. The consequences on quality of life and costs of current care of a hypothetical care pathway with perfect risk assessment were modeled based on information from a literature review and the input from the stakeholders. Subsequently, the maximum added value (the headroom) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of this result to variation in assumed input parameters, i.e. the accuracy of the risk assessment, the efficacy of anti-seizure medication (ASM), and the probability of patients expected to develop PSE. RESULTS: All stakeholders considered the addition of a predictive biomarker for the risk assessment of PSE to be of value. The headroom amounted to €12,983. The sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the headroom remained beneficial when varying the accuracy of the risk assessment, the ASM efficacy, and the number of patients expected to develop PSE. DISCUSSION: We showed that a risk assessment for PSE development is potentially valuable. This work demonstrates that it is worthwhile to undertake clinical studies to evaluate biomarkers for the prediction of patients at high risk for PSE and to assess the value of targeted prophylactic treatment.

Budget Impact of Three Improvement Targets for Compression Therapy for Patients with Deep Venous Thrombosis in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Compression therapy following deep venous thrombosis in the Netherlands is suboptimal. We assessed the budget impact of targeted care improvements. METHODS: We calculated the per-patient and population healthcare resource use and costs concerning 26,500 new patients each year in the Netherlands for the current pathways in region North Holland (divided into two parts: NH-A and NH-B) and region Limburg. Next, we assessed the impact of three improvement targets: optimizing initial compression therapy, early consultation of an occupational therapist, and tailored duration of elastic compression stocking therapy. Inputs were based on interview (n = 30) and survey data (n = 114), literature, and standard prices. The robustness of the results was tested by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The current per-patient costs for a 2-year episode were €1046 (NH-A), €947 (NH-B), and €1256 (Limburg). The improvements led to direct savings for region Limburg (€4.7 million). Population costs increased in the first year for NH-A (+ €3.5 million) and NH-B (+ €6.4 million), and decreased in the second and third year resulting in a cost reduction for NH-A (- €2.2 million) but not for NH-B (+ €0.6 million). Workload for occupational therapists and internists in North Holland increased, and workload for home care nurses decreased in all regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a detailed insight into current costs and healthcare resource use associated with compression therapy and the potential impact of implementing three improvement targets. We showed that the improvements resulted in considerable cost savings within 3 years after implementation for region NH-A and Limburg.

Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations.

Uncertainty assessment is a cornerstone in model-based health economic evaluations (HEEs) that inform reimbursement decisions. No comprehensive overview of available uncertainty assessment methods currently exists. We aimed to review methods for uncertainty assessment for use in model-based HEEs, by conducting a snowballing review. We categorised all methods according to their stage of use relating to uncertainty assessment (identification, analysis, communication). Additionally, we classified identification methods according to sources of uncertainty, and subdivided analysis and communication methods according to their purpose. The review identified a total of 80 uncertainty methods: 30 identification, 28 analysis, and 22 communication methods. Uncertainty identification methods exist to address uncertainty from different sources. Most identification methods were developed with the objective to assess related concepts such as validity, model quality, and relevance. Almost all uncertainty analysis and communication methods required uncertainty to be quantified and inclusion of uncertainties in probabilistic analysis. Our review can help analysts and decision makers in selecting uncertainty assessment methods according to their aim and purpose of the assessment. We noted a need for further clarification of terminology and guidance on the use of (combinations of) methods to identify uncertainty and related concepts such as validity and quality. A key finding is that uncertainty assessment relies heavily on quantification, which may necessitate increased use of expert elicitation and/or the development of methods to assess unquantified uncertainty.

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group's base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group's base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.

Headroom Analysis for Early Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The headroom analysis is an early economic evaluation that quantifies the highest price at which an intervention may still be cost effective. Currently, there is no comprehensive review on how it is applied. This study investigated the application of the headroom analysis, specifically (1) how the headroom analysis is framed (2) the analytical approach and sources of evidence used, and (3) how expert judgement is used and reported. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, and Google Scholar on 28 April 2022. Studies were eligible if they reported an application of the headroom analysis. Data were presented in tabular form and summarised descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 42 relevant papers. The headroom analysis was applied to medicines (29%), diagnostic or screening tests (29%), procedures, programmes and systems (21%), medical devices (19%), and a combined test and device (2%). All studies used model-based analyses, with 40% using simple models and 60% using more comprehensive models. Thirty-three percent of the studies assumed perfect effectiveness of the health technology, while 67% adopted realistic assumptions. Ten percent of the studies calculated an effectiveness-seeking headroom instead of a cost-seeking headroom. Expert judgement was used in 71% of the studies; 23 studies (55%) used expert opinion, 6 studies (14%) used expert elicitation, and 1 study (2%) used both. CONCLUSIONS: Because the application of the headroom analysis varies considerably, we recommend its appropriate use and clear reporting of analytical approaches, level of evidence available, and the use of expert judgement.

Effectiveness and costs of a stepwise versus an all-in-one approach to diagnose mild bleeding disorders.

The diagnostic work-up of patients referred to the haematologist for bleeding evaluation is performed in a stepwise way: bleeding history and results of screening laboratory tests guide further diagnostic evaluation. This can be ineffective, time-consuming and burdensome for patients. To improve this strategy, the initial laboratory investigation can be extended. In a model-based approach, effectiveness and costs of a conventional stepwise versus a newly proposed all-in-one diagnostic approach for bleeding evaluation were evaluated and compared, using data from an observational patient cohort study, including adult patients referred for bleeding evaluation. In the all-in-one approach, specialized platelet function tests, coagulation factors, and fibrinolysis tests were included in the initial investigation. Final diagnosis, hospital resource use and costs and patient burden were compared. A total of 150 patients were included. Compared to the stepwise approach, in the all-in-one approach, 19 additional patients reached a diagnosis and patient burden was lower, but total costs per patient were higher [€359, 95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) 283-518, p = 0.001]. For bleeding evaluation of patients referred to the haematologist, an all-in-one diagnostic approach has a higher diagnostic yield and reduces patient burden, at a higher cost. This raises the question what costs justify the diagnosis of a bleeding disorder and a less burdensome diagnostic strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Future Developments With Whole-Genome Sequencing for Patients With Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness, budget impact (BI), and impact of uncertainty of future developments concerning whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a clinical diagnostic test compared with standard of care (SoC) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: A total of 3 likely scenarios to take place within 5 years (according to experts) were simulated using a previously developed, peer reviewed, and published decision model. The scenarios concerned "WGS results used for treatment selection" (scenario 1), "WGS-based biomarker for immunotherapy" (scenario 2), and "off-label drug approval for WGS results" (scenario 3). Two diagnostic strategies of the original model, "SoC" and "WGS as a diagnostic test" (base model), were used to compare our scenarios with. Outcomes were reported for the base model, all scenarios separately, combined (combined unweighted), and weighted by likelihood (combined weighted). Cost-effectiveness, BI, and value of information analyses were performed for WGS compared with SoC. RESULTS: Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years for SoC in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer were €149 698 and 1.235. Incremental outcomes of WGS were €1529/0.002(base model), -€222/0.020(scenario 1), -€2576/0.023(scenario 2), €388/0.024(scenario 3), -€5041/0.060(combined unweighted), and -€1715/0.029(combined weighted). The annual BI for adopting WGS for this population in The Netherlands ranged between €682 million (combined unweighted) and €714 million (base model). The consequences of uncertainty amounted to €3.4 million for all scenarios (combined weighted) and to €699 000 for the diagnostic yield of WGS alone (combined weighted). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is likely for WGS to become cost-effective within the near future if it identifies more patients with actionable targets and show the impact of uncertainty regarding its diagnostic yield. Modeling future scenarios can be useful to consider early adoption of WGS while timely anticipating on unforeseen developments before final conclusions are reached.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic cranial irradiation in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) reduces the brain metastases incidence and prolongs the progression-free survival without improving overall survival. PCI increases the risk of toxicity and is currently not adopted in routine care. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI compared with no PCI in stage III NSCLC from a Dutch societal perspective. METHODS: A cohort partitioned survival model was developed based on individual patient data from three randomized phase III trials (N = 670). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were estimated over a lifetime time horizon. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80,000 per QALY was adopted. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to address parameter uncertainty and to explore what parameters had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: PCI was more effective and costly (0.443 QALYs, €10,123) than no PCI, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €22,843 per QALY gained. The probability of PCI being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of €80,000 per QALY was 93%. The probability of PCI gaining three and six additional months of life were 76% and 56%. The scenario analysis adding durvalumab increased the ICER to €35,159 per QALY gained. Using alternative survival distributions had little impact on the ICER. Assuming fewer PCI fractions and excluding indirect costs decreased the ICER to €18,263 and €5554 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: PCI is cost-effective compared to no PCI in stage III NSCLC, and could therefore, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, be considered in routine care.

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.

Early Cost Effectiveness of Whole-Genome Sequencing as a Clinical Diagnostic Test for Patients with Inoperable Stage IIIB,C/IV Non-squamous Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbours many genetic aberrations that can be targeted with systemic treatments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can simultaneously detect these (and possibly new) molecular targets. However, the exact added clinical value of WGS is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the early cost effectiveness of using WGS in diagnostic strategies compared with currently used molecular diagnostics for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous NSCLC from a Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A decision tree represented the diagnostic pathway, and a cohort state transition model represented disease progression. Three diagnostic strategies were modelled: standard of care (SoC) alone, WGS as a diagnostic test, and SoC followed by WGS. Treatment effectiveness was based on a systematic review. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and threshold analyses (using €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was used to explore the early cost effectiveness of WGS. RESULTS: WGS as a diagnostic test resulted in more QALYs (0.002) and costs (€1534 [incremental net monetary benefit -€1349]), and SoC followed by WGS resulted in fewer QALYs (-0.002) and more costs (€1059 [-€1194]) compared with SoC alone. WGS as a diagnostic test was only cost effective if it was priced at €2000 per patient and identified 2.7% more actionable patients than SoC alone. Treating these additional identified patients with new treatments costing >€4069 per month decreased the probability of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that providing WGS as a diagnostic test is cost effective compared with SoC followed by WGS and SoC alone if costs for WGS decrease and additional patients with actionable targets are identified. This cost-effectiveness model can be used to incorporate new findings iteratively and to support ongoing decision making regarding the use of WGS in this rapidly evolving field.

Implementation Barriers to Value of Information Analysis in Health Technology Decision Making: Results From a Process Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Value of information (VOI) analysis can support health technology assessment decision making, but it is a long way from being standard use. The objective of this study was to understand barriers to the implementation of VOI analysis and propose actions to overcome these. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation of VOI analysis use within decision making on tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for use in the Dutch breast cancer population screening. Based on steering committee meeting attendance and regular meetings with analysts, we developed a list of barriers to VOI use, which were analyzed using an established diffusion model. We proposed actions to address these barriers. Barriers and actions were discussed and validated in a workshop with stakeholders representing patients, clinicians, regulators, policy advisors, researchers, and the industry. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on groups of barriers, which included characteristics of VOI analysis itself, stakeholder's attitudes, analysts' and policy makers' skills and knowledge, system readiness, and implementation in the organization. Observed barriers did not only pertain to VOI analysis itself but also to formulating the objective of the assessment, economic modeling, and broader aspects of uncertainty assessment. Actions to overcome these barriers related to organizational changes, knowledge transfer, cultural change, and tools. CONCLUSIONS: This in-depth analysis of barriers to implementation of VOI analysis and resulting actions and tools may be useful to health technology assessment organizations that wish to implement VOI analysis in technology assessment and research prioritization. Further research should focus on application and evaluation of the proposed actions in real-world assessment processes.

Filgotinib for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Gilead) of filgotinib (JyselecaTM), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 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 NICE Appraisal Committee. The evidence for filgotinib was based on two good-quality international randomised controlled trials. In FINCH 1, filgotinib was compared with placebo, and in FINCH 2, filgotinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo. As there was no head-to-head evidence with most active comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), one for the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population and one for the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population. The outcomes analysed were American College of Rheumatology response criteria at weeks 12 and 24, and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria at 24 weeks. The statistical methods used to perform the NMAs were valid and were in line with previous NICE appraisals. Results of the NMAs are confidential and cannot be reported here, but they were uncertain due to heterogeneity of the included studies. The economic analysis of the patient population with moderate RA suffered from limited evidence on the progression from moderate to severe health states. For the moderate RA population, the final analyses comparing filgotinib, with or without methotrexate, against standard of care resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of around £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the company's and ERG's base-case and scenario analyses. NICE recommended filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy when methotrexate is contraindicated, or if people cannot tolerate it, for patients with moderate RA whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). For the severe RA population, in view of the higher or similar net health benefits that filgotinib provided versus its comparators, NICE recommended filgotinib with or without methotrexate for patients whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional DMARDs, who had been treated with one or more biological DMARDs, if rituximab was not an option, or after treatment with rituximab.

Exploring the Feasibility of Comprehensive Uncertainty Assessment in Health Economic Modeling: A Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Decision makers adopt health technologies based on health economic models that are subject to uncertainty. In an ideal world, these models parameterize all uncertainties and reflect them in the cost-effectiveness probability and risk associated with the adoption. In practice, uncertainty assessment is often incomplete, potentially leading to suboptimal reimbursement recommendations and risk management. This study examines the feasibility of comprehensive uncertainty assessment in health economic models. METHODS: A state transition model on peripheral arterial disease treatment was used as a case study. Uncertainties were identified and added to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis if possible. Parameter distributions were obtained by expert elicitation, and structural uncertainties were either parameterized or explored in scenario analyses, which were model averaged. RESULTS: A truly comprehensive uncertainty assessment, parameterizing all uncertainty, could not be achieved. Expert elicitation informed 8 effectiveness, utility, and cost parameters. Uncertainties were parameterized or explored in scenario analyses and with model averaging. Barriers included time and resource constraints, also of clinical experts, and lacking guidance regarding some aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The team's multidisciplinary expertise and existing literature and tools were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: While comprehensive uncertainty assessment may not be attainable, improvements in uncertainty assessment in general are no doubt desirable. This requires the development of detailed guidance and hands-on tutorials for methods of uncertainty assessment, in particular aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The issue of benefits of uncertainty assessment versus time and resources needed remains unclear.

State of the ART? Two New Tools for Risk Communication in Health Technology Assessments.

PURPOSE: Outcomes of health technology assessments (HTA) are uncertain, and decision-making is associated with a risk. This risk, consisting of the probability of making a wrong decision and its impact, is rarely considered in HTA. This hampers transparent and consistent risk assessment and management. The aim of this study was to develop risk communication tools in the context of health technology decision-making under uncertainty. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of tools for uncertainty and risk communication within HTA using citation pearl-growing. We developed two tools, drawing on existing publications on risk and uncertainty communication for inspiration. Individual semi-structured interviews with HTA stakeholders were performed to identify potential improvements in usefulness, user-friendliness, and information adequacy. Tools were amended and further evaluated in a real-world HTA and workshop with HTA stakeholders. RESULTS: The identified risk communication tools did not include non-quantified uncertainties, and did not link to risk management strategies. We developed two tools: the Assessment of Risk Table (ART), for a summary of quantified and non-quantified uncertainties and the resulting risk assessment, and the Appraisal of Risk Chart (ARCH), for linking net benefit and risk outcomes to appropriate risk management strategies. Stakeholders appreciated the usefulness of the tools. They also highlighted that more information on local policy options was required for optimal risk management use, and HTA processes may need adapting. CONCLUSION: The risk communication tools presented here can help assess risk, facilitate communication between analysts and decision-makers, and guide the appropriate use of available risk management strategies.

Whole genome sequencing in oncology: using scenario drafting to explore future developments.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is not yet widely implemented due to uncertainties such as the required infrastructure and expertise, costs and reimbursements, and unknown pan-cancer clinical utility. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible future developments facilitating or impeding the use of WGS as a molecular diagnostic in oncology through scenario drafting. METHODS: A four-step process was adopted for scenario drafting. First, the literature was searched for barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of WGS. Second, they were prioritized by international experts, and third, combined into coherent scenarios. Fourth, the scenarios were implemented in an online survey and their likelihood of taking place within 5 years was elicited from another group of experts. Based on the minimum, maximum, and most likely (mode) parameters, individual Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) probability density functions were determined. Subsequently, individual opinions were aggregated by performing unweighted linear pooling, from which summary statistics were extracted and reported. RESULTS: Sixty-two unique barriers and facilitators were extracted from 70 articles. Price, clinical utility, and turnaround time of WGS were ranked as the most important aspects. Nine scenarios were developed and scored on likelihood by 18 experts. The scenario about introducing WGS as a clinical diagnostic with a lower price, shorter turnaround time, and improved degree of actionability, scored the highest likelihood (median: 68.3%). Scenarios with low likelihoods and strong consensus were about better treatment responses to more actionable targets (26.1%), and the effect of centralizing WGS (24.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current expert opinions, the implementation of WGS as a clinical diagnostic in oncology is heavily dependent on the price, clinical utility (both in terms of identifying actionable targets as in adding sufficient value in subsequent treatment), and turnaround time. These aspects and the optimal way of service provision are the main drivers for the implementation of WGS and should be focused on in further research. More knowledge regarding these factors is needed to inform strategic decision making regarding the implementation of WGS, which warrants support from all relevant stakeholders.

Building a trusted framework for uncertainty assessment in rare diseases: suggestions for improvement (Response to "TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases").

The aim of this letter to the editor is to provide a comprehensive summary of uncertainty assessment in Health Technology Assessment, with a focus on transferability to the setting of rare diseases. The authors of "TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases" presented recommendations for reducing uncertainty in rare diseases. Their article is of great importance but unfortunately suffers from a lack of references to the wider uncertainty in Health Technology Assessment and research prioritisation literature and consequently fails to provide a trusted framework for decision-making in rare diseases. In this letter to the editor we critique the authors' tool and provide pointers as to how their proposal can be strengthened. We present references to the literature, including our own tool for uncertainty assessment (TRUST; unrelated to the authors' research), apply TRUST to two assessments of orphan drugs in rare diseases and provide a broader perspective on uncertainty and risk management in rare diseases, including a detailed research agenda.