Prevalence, management and efficacy of treatment in portal vein obstruction after paediatric liver transplantation: protocol of the retrospective international multicentre PORTAL registry.

INTRODUCTION: Portal vein obstruction (PVO) consists of anastomotic stenosis and thrombosis, which occurs due to a progression of the former. The aim of this large-scale international study is to assess the prevalence, current management practices and efficacy of treatment in patients with PVO. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Portal vein Obstruction Revascularisation Therapy After Liver transplantation registry will facilitate an international, retrospective, multicentre, observational study, with 25 centres around the world already actively involved. Paediatric patients (aged <18 years) with a diagnosed PVO between 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2021 after liver transplantation will be eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoints are the prevalence of PVO, primary and secondary patency after PVO intervention and current management practices. Secondary endpoints are patient and graft survival, severe complications of PVO and technical success of revascularisation techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Medical Ethics Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen has approved the study (METc 2021/072). The results of this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentations at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL9261).

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines: A Systematic Review.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx-guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0-100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost-effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost-saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high-quality studies (91; range 48-100). Most studies evaluating cost-effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost-effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.

A risk-adjusted and anatomically stratified cohort comparison study of open surgery, endovascular techniques and medical management for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms-the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In one-third of all abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the aneurysm neck is short (juxtarenal) or shows other adverse anatomical features rendering operations more complex, hazardous and expensive. Surgical options include open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) techniques including fenestrated EVAR, EVAR with adjuncts (chimneys/endoanchors) and off-label standard EVAR. The aim of the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS) is to answer the research question identified by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme: 'What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of strategies for the management of juxtarenal AAA, including fenestrated endovascular repair?' METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UK-COMPASS is a cohort study comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of different strategies used to manage complex AAAs with stratification of physiological fitness and anatomical complexity, with statistical correction for baseline risk and indication biases. There are two data streams. First, a stream of routinely collected data from Hospital Episode Statistics and National Vascular Registry (NVR). Preoperative CT scans of all patients who underwent elective AAA repair in England between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2019 are subjected to Corelab analysis to accurately identify and include every complex aneurysm treated. Second, a site-reported data stream regarding quality of life and treatment costs from prospectively recruited patients across England. Site recruitment also includes patients with complex aneurysms larger than 55 mm diameter in whom an operation is deferred (medical management). The primary outcome measure is perioperative all-cause mortality. Follow-up will be to a median of 5 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received full regulatory approvals from a Research Ethics Committee, the Confidentiality Advisory Group and the Health Research Authority. Data sharing agreements are in place with National Health Service Digital and the NVR. Dissemination will be via NIHR HTA reporting, peer-reviewed journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85731188.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. LIMITATIONS: The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres. CONCLUSIONS: In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts. FUTURE WORK: Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer. The choice of treatment depends on the extent of the cancer and liver function. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation directly to liver tumours via tiny beads injected into the main blood vessel into the liver. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres^® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres^® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). Our aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma that is not treatable by surgery, and to assess whether or not these therapies represent good value for money. There was no meaningful difference between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (Nexavar^®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany), which is a cancer drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies of other selective internal radiation therapies and studies in patients with less advanced disease were generally of poor quality, so their results may not be reliable. We could not assess whether or not selective internal radiation therapies are beneficial to patients with early- or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, or whether or not TheraSphere and QuiremSpheres are beneficial. Compared with sorafenib or lenvatinib (Kisplyx^®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (another systemic cancer drug), none of the selective internal radiation therapies were good value for money for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We found that TheraSphere might be cheaper than SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres, but differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. There was not enough evidence for patients with early or intermediate disease to say whether or not selective internal radiation therapy is good value for treating these patients. Future studies in these populations, alongside any studies comparing the selective internal radiation therapies against each other, would be helpful.

Evaluation of CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Voriconazole Prophylaxis After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant.

There is a high risk of voriconazole failure in those with subtherapeutic drug concentrations, which is more common in CYP2C19 (cytochrome P450 2C19) rapid/ultrarapid metabolizers (RMs/UMs). We evaluated CYP2C19 genotype-guided voriconazole dosing on drug concentrations and clinical outcomes in adult allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. Poor (PMs), intermediate (IMs), and normal metabolizers (NMs) received voriconazole 200 mg twice daily; RMs/UMs received 300 mg twice daily. Steady-state trough concentrations were obtained after 5 days, targeting 1.0-5.5 mg/L. Of 89 evaluable patients, 29% had subtherapeutic concentrations compared with 50% in historical controls (P < 0.001). Zero, 26%, 50%, and 16% of PMs, IMs, NMs, and RMs/UMs were subtherapeutic. Voriconazole success rate was 78% compared with 54% in historical controls (P < 0.001). No patients experienced an invasive fungal infection (IFI). Genotype-guided dosing resulted in $4,700 estimated per patient savings as compared with simulated controls. CYP2C19 genotype-guided voriconazole dosing reduced subtherapeutic drug concentrations and effectively prevented IFIs.