Variation in Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Methodological Review.

OBJECTIVES: There is significant heterogeneity in the results of published model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. We sought to understand and demonstrate how these models differ. METHODS: An expansion and update of a previous systematic review (N = 19). Databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Studies were included if strategies involving (single or multiple) LDCT screening were compared with no screening or other imaging modalities, in a population at risk of lung cancer. More detailed data extraction of studies from the previous review was conducted. Studies were critically appraised using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: A total of 16 new studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 35 studies. There are geographic and temporal differences and differences in screening intervals and eligible populations. Studies varied in the types of models used, for example, decision tree, Markov, and microsimulation models. Most conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (using life-years gained) or cost-utility analysis. The potential for overdiagnosis was considered in many models, unlike with other potential consequences of screening. Some studies report considering lead-time bias, but fewer mention length bias. Generally, the more recent studies, involving more complex modeling, tended to meet more of the critical appraisal criteria, with notable exceptions. CONCLUSIONS: There are many differences across the economic evaluations contributing to variation in estimates of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Several methodological factors and evidence needs have been highlighted that will require consideration in future economic evaluations to achieve better agreement.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care. LIMITATIONS: There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195. 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. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a long-term condition that causes pain, swelling and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with drugs called tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel^®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia^®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)]. Some people taking these drugs find that their disease improves, whereas others do not respond to the treatment or improve initially and then experience loss of response. One cause of lost response is that individuals develop antibodies (i.e. protective proteins) against the drug, which hamper the effect of treatment. Various tests have been developed to measure the level of drugs and antibodies against these drugs in patient's blood samples. This kind of monitoring would allow treatment to be adjusted in response to the test outcomes to optimise benefit for the patient, and help clinicians to better understand the reasons for an absence or a loss of response to treatment. The aim of this study was to find out whether or not it would be clinically effective (i.e. good for patients) and cost-effective (i.e. a good use of NHS resources) to use these tests for monitoring drug and antibody levels, as a means of assessing treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are controlled, have not responded or have lost response. Results from a systematic review showed that, because of the limited and poor-quality evidence, there was much uncertainty in the clinical effectiveness of testing. A simple mathematical model drew on evidence from one poorly reported study, which was heavily supplemented by data from other studies and expert advice. Results from the model were inconclusive and suggest that there is considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of testing. Therefore, the results presented here should be considered with caution. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of tumour necrosis factor testing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes. METHODS: An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained). RESULTS: LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold. LIMITATIONS: LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners (GP) diagnose colorectal cancer. It is unclear how well they perform and whether they lead to increased or quicker diagnoses and ultimately impact on patient quality of life and/or survival. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development, validation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of cancer diagnostic tools for colorectal cancer in primary care. METHODS: Electronic databases including Medline and Web of Science were searched in May 2017 (updated October 2019). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts. Studies were included if they reported the development, validation or accuracy of a prediction model, or assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools based on prediction models to aid GP decision-making for symptomatic patients presenting with features potentially indicative of colorectal cancer. Data extraction and risk of bias were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven thousand one hundred thirteen records were screened and 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-studies reported on the development, validation and/or accuracy of 13 prediction models: eight for colorectal cancer, five for cancer areas/types that include colorectal cancer. The Qcancer models were generally the best performing. Three impact studies met the inclusion criteria. Two (an RCT and a pre-post study) assessed tools based on the RAT prediction model. The third study looked at the impact of GP practices having access to RAT or Qcancer. Although the pre-post study reported a positive impact of the tools on outcomes, the results of the RCT and cross-sectional survey found no evidence that use of, or access to, the tools was associated with better outcomes. No study evaluated cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Many prediction models have been developed but none have been fully validated. Evidence demonstrating improved patient outcome of introducing the tools is the main deficiency and is essential given the imperfect classification achieved by all tools. This need is emphasised by the equivocal results of the small number of impact studies done so far.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care. METHODS: Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored. RESULTS: Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools. DECISION MODEL: In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters. SURVEY: Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals). LIMITATIONS: There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates. CONCLUSION: The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In the UK, people with cancer tend to die sooner than people with cancer in other European countries. This may be because their cancers are caught at a later stage, perhaps after they have spread. Spotting cancer earlier in people, and testing them sooner, may extend people's lives. Researchers have developed 'diagnostic tools', which give the probability of having cancer, based on a patient's symptoms, blood test results and other information. The tools help family doctors decide who needs further testing for possible cancer, including cancers of the digestive, urinary and reproductive systems, and in the blood. We do not know how many family doctors have these tools, or how well the tools work. We systematically reviewed published studies about how these tools were developed, how good and accurate they are, and what effects their use has on patients. We found that many tools have been developed, but there is little evidence that they improve the quality or length of life. We sent surveys to family doctors all over the UK asking if they had the tools at their practice and if they used them. Based on the replies we received, we estimate that the tools are in about one in three practices. They are likely to be used in about half of the practices where they are available. For practices in England only, we looked for, but did not find, any association between using the tools and the number of urgent appointments made for cancer testing. We used a computer model to show what might happen if family doctors used the tools for patients who have symptoms of bowel cancer. In our model, if general practitioners used the tools, patients would need fewer appointments before they were referred to a specialist. This should reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment, compared with not using the tools. However, there is very little evidence as to whether or not this is indeed the case. Therefore, at the moment, we cannot say whether or not the use of such tools by general practitioners is better for patients and the NHS. More research is needed on what effect these tools have on patients, especially as to whether or not quality and length of life are improved.

Voretigene Neparvovec for Treating Inherited Retinal Dystrophies Caused by RPE65 Gene Mutations: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Highly Specialised Technology Appraisal.

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considered evidence for voretigene neparvovec (VN; Luxturna®) for the treatment of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophies (IRD) within its highly specialised technology programme. This paper summarises the evidence provided by the company; the appraisal of the evidence by the Peninsula Technology Appraisal Group, who were commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG); and the development of the NICE guidance by the appraisal committee. The evidence presented by the company highlighted the significant lifelong burden of IRD for patients and carers. Evidence to support the effectiveness of VN was lacking, but the available evidence showed a modest, sustained improvement across a variety of vision-related outcomes. While patients would remain visually impaired, the committee considered that VN would prevent further deterioration in vision. The modelling approach used by the company had a number of limitations and relied heavily upon a large volume of clinical expert input to produce cost-effectiveness estimates with large uncertainty around long-term effectiveness. The ERG's main concerns revolved around these long-term outcomes and the plausibility of utility values. The NICE committee were convinced that the clinical benefits of VN were important and an appropriate use of national health service resources within a specialised service. The committee concluded that a high unmet need existed in patients with RPE65-mediated IRD and that VN represents a step change in the management of this condition.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses. LIMITATIONS: Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included. CONCLUSIONS: LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits. FUTURE WORK: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial]. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Olaratumab in Combination with Doxorubicin for the Treatment of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.

The manufacturer of olaratumab (Lartruvo®), Eli Lilly & Company Limited, submitted evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug, in combination with doxorubicin, for untreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy, as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal process. The Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), critically reviewed the company's submission. Clinical effectiveness evidence for the company's analysis was derived from an open-label, randomised controlled trial, JGDG. The analysis was based on a partitioned survival model with a time horizon of 25 years, and the perspective was of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Given the available evidence, olaratumab is likely to meet NICE's end-of-life criteria. To improve the cost effectiveness of olaratumab, the company offered a discount through a Commercial Access Agreement (CAA) with the NHS England. When the discount was applied, the mean base-case and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for olaratumab plus doxorubicin versus the standard-of-care doxorubicin were £46,076 and £47,127 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively; the probability of this treatment being cost effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000 per QALY gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments, was 0.54. The respective ICERs from the ERG's analysis were approximately £60,000/QALY gained, and the probability of the treatment being cost effective was 0.21. In August 2017, the NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin for this indication for use via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund under the agreed CAA until further evidence being collected in the ongoing phase III trial-ANNOUNCE-becomes available in December 2020.