Hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance based on the Australian Consensus Guidelines: a health economic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fastest increasing cause of cancer death in Australia. A recent Australian consensus guidelines recommended HCC surveillance for cirrhotic patients and non-cirrhotic chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients at gender and age specific cut-offs. A cost-effectiveness model was then developed to assess surveillance strategies in Australia. METHODS: A microsimulation model was used to evaluate three strategies: biannual ultrasound, biannual ultrasound with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and no formal surveillance for patients having one of the conditions: non-cirrhotic CHB, compensated cirrhosis or decompensated cirrhosis. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as scenario and threshold analyses were conducted to account for uncertainties: including exclusive surveillance of CHB, compensated cirrhosis or decompensated cirrhosis populations; impact of obesity on ultrasound sensitivity; real-world adherence rate; and different cohort's ranges of ages. RESULTS: Sixty HCC surveillance scenarios were considered for the baseline population. The ultrasound + AFP strategy was the most cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) compared to no surveillance falling below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at all age ranges. Ultrasound alone was also cost-effective, but the strategy was dominated by ultrasound + AFP. Surveillance was cost-effective in the compensated and decompensated cirrhosis populations alone (ICERs < $30,000), but not cost-effective in the CHB population (ICERs > $100,000). Obesity could decrease the diagnostic performance of ultrasound, which in turn, reduce the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound ± AFP, but the strategies remained cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: HCC surveillance based on Australian recommendations using biannual ultrasound ± AFP was cost-effective.

Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review.

Barriers to access and long-term complications remain a challenge in transplantation. Further advancements may be achieved through research priority setting with patient engagement to strengthen its relevance. We evaluated research priority setting in solid organ transplantation and described stakeholder priorities. Databases were searched to October 2016. We synthesized the findings descriptively. The 28 studies (n = 2071 participants) addressed kidney [9 (32%)], heart [7 (25%)], liver [3 (11%)], lung [1 (4%)], pancreas [1 (4%)], and nonspecified organ transplantation [7 (25%)] using consensus conferences, expert panel meetings, workshops, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and the Delphi technique. Nine (32%) reported patient involvement. The 336 research priorities addressed the following: organ donation [43 priorities (14 studies)]; waitlisting and allocation [43 (10 studies)]; histocompatibility and immunology [31 (8 studies)]; immunosuppression [21 (10 studies)]; graft-related complications [38 (13 studies)]; recipient (non-graft-related) complications [86 (14 studies)]; reproduction [14 (1 study)], psychosocial and lifestyle [49 (7 studies)]; and disparities in access and outcomes [10 (4 studies)]. The priorities identified were broad but only one-third of initiatives engaged patients/caregivers, and details of the process were lacking. Setting research priorities in an explicit manner with patient involvement can guide investment toward the shared priorities of patients and health professionals.