A health technology assessment of personalized nutrition interventions using the EUnetHTA HTA Core Model.

OBJECTIVES: Poor nutrition links to chronic diseases, emphasizing the need for optimized diets. The EU-funded project PREVENTOMICS, introduced personalized nutrition to address this. This study aims to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) comparing personalized nutrition interventions developed through this project, with non-personalized nutrition interventions (control) for people with normal weight, overweight, or obesity. The goal is to support decisions about further development and implementation of personalized nutrition. METHODS: The PREVENTOMICS interventions were evaluated using the European Network for HTA Core Model, which includes a methodological framework that encompasses different domains for value assessment. Information was gathered via [1] different statistical analyses and modeling studies, [2] questions asked of project partners and, [3] other (un)published materials. RESULTS: Clinical trials of PREVENTOMICS interventions demonstrated different body mass index changes compared to control; differences ranged from -0.80 to 0.20 kg/m2. Long-term outcome predictions showed generally improved health outcomes for the interventions; some appeared cost-effective (e.g., interventions in UK). Ethical concerns around health inequality and the lack of specific legal regulations for personalized nutrition interventions were identified. Choice modeling studies indicated openness to personalized nutrition interventions; decisions were primarily affected by intervention's price. CONCLUSIONS: PREVENTOMICS clinical trials have shown promising effectiveness with no major safety concerns, although uncertainties about effectiveness exist due to small samples (n=60-264) and short follow-ups (10-16 weeks). Larger, longer trials are needed for robust evidence before implementation could be considered. Among other considerations, developers should explore financing options and collaborate with policymakers to prevent exclusion of specific groups due to information shortages.

Economic Evaluation of a Personalized Nutrition Plan Based on Omic Sciences Versus a General Nutrition Plan in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Modeling Study Based on Trial Data in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Since there is no diet that is perfect for everyone, personalized nutrition approaches are gaining popularity to achieve goals such as the prevention of obesity-related diseases. However, appropriate choices about funding and encouraging personalized nutrition approaches should be based on sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this study, we assessed whether a newly developed personalized plan (PP) could be cost-effective relative to a non-personalized plan in Denmark. METHODS: Results of a 10-week randomized controlled trial were combined with a validated obesity economic model to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness. In the trial, the intervention group (PP) received personalized home-delivered meals based on metabolic biomarkers and personalized behavioral change messages. In the control group these meals and messages were not personalized. Effects were measured in body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Costs [euros (€), 2020] were considered from a societal perspective. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was assessed using a multi-state Markov model. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the trial, no significant differences were found in the effectiveness of PP compared with control, but wide confidence intervals (CIs) were seen [e.g., BMI (-0.07, 95% CI -0.51, 0.38)]. Lifetime estimates showed that PP increased costs (€520,102 versus €518,366, difference: €1736) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (15.117 versus 15.106, difference: 0.011); the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was therefore high (€158,798 to gain one QALY). However, a 20% decrease in intervention costs would reduce the ICUR (€23,668 per QALY gained) below an unofficial gross domestic product (GDP)-based willingness-to-pay threshold (€47,817 per QALY gained). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the willingness-to-pay threshold and the non-significant differences in short-term effectiveness, PP may not be cost-effective. However, scaling up the intervention would reduce the intervention costs. Future studies should be larger and/or longer to reduce uncertainty about short-term effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04590989).

Prices of Orphan Drugs in Four Western European Countries Before and After Market Exclusivity Expiry: A Cross-Country Comparison of List Prices and Purchase Prices.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pharmaceutical expenditure challenges the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare systems across Europe. Confidentiality restraints hinder assessment of actual prices of Orphan Medicinal Products (OMPs). Hence, we assessed the real prices of brand-name OMPs around market exclusivity expiry (MEE). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore developments in published list prices (LPs) and confidential hospital purchase prices (PPs) of brand-name OMPs relative to their market exclusivity status in Western European countries with similar GDPs. METHODS: We analyzed LPs and PPs of 13 selected OMPs purchased by university hospitals in Western European countries between 2000 and 2020. For confidentially reasons, proportions were used, with the Dutch LPs of the selected OMPs at the year of MEE serving as reference values. PPs included pre-purchase discounts. Rebates were not considered. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from hospitals in Denmark (DK) (n = 1), France (FR) (n = 1), Germany (DE) (n = 2), and the Netherlands (NL) (n = 1). Average LPs and PPs of included OMPs dropped gradually but limited over time, with no explicit price drop after MEE. LP levels differed more per country than PP levels: LP range before MEE was 164% (DE)-101% (FR) and after MEE was 135% (DE)-82% (FR); PP range before MEE was 150% (DE)-102% (FR) and after MEE was 107% (DE)-80% (FR). Overall differences between LPs and PPs were < 3% in all countries, except for Denmark. CONCLUSION: No evident price drops of included brand-name OMPs were observed around MEE and differences in purchase prices are modest in the selected Western European countries. Results were not subject to significance testing. More robust data are needed to strengthen negotiations with suppliers.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands.

Background: The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands. Methods: For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.

Differences in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Low- and High-Income Patients in 6 Countries.

Importance: Differences in the organization and financing of health systems may produce more or less equitable outcomes for advantaged vs disadvantaged populations. We compared treatments and outcomes of older high- and low-income patients across 6 countries. Objective: To determine whether treatment patterns and outcomes for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction differ for low- vs high-income individuals across 6 countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional cohort study of all adults aged 66 years or older hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction from 2013 through 2018 in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Israel using population-representative administrative data. Exposures: Being in the top and bottom quintile of income within and across countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day and 1-year mortality; secondary outcomes included rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization, length of stay, and readmission rates. Results: We studied 289 376 patients hospitalized with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 843 046 hospitalized with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Adjusted 30-day mortality generally was 1 to 3 percentage points lower for high-income patients. For instance, 30-day mortality among patients admitted with STEMI in the Netherlands was 10.2% for those with high income vs 13.1% for those with low income (difference, -2.8 percentage points [95% CI, -4.1 to -1.5]). One-year mortality differences for STEMI were even larger than 30-day mortality, with the highest difference in Israel (16.2% vs 25.3%; difference, -9.1 percentage points [95% CI, -16.7 to -1.6]). In all countries, rates of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention were higher among high- vs low-income populations, with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 6 percentage points (eg, 73.6% vs 67.4%; difference, 6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 11.0] for percutaneous intervention in England for STEMI). Rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with STEMI in low- vs high-income strata were similar but for NSTEMI were generally 1 to 2 percentage points higher among high-income patients (eg, 12.5% vs 11.0% in the US; difference, 1.5 percentage points [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8 ]). Thirty-day readmission rates generally also were 1 to 3 percentage points lower and hospital length of stay generally was 0.2 to 0.5 days shorter for high-income patients. Conclusions and Relevance: High-income individuals had substantially better survival and were more likely to receive lifesaving revascularization and had shorter hospital lengths of stay and fewer readmissions across almost all countries. Our results suggest that income-based disparities were present even in countries with universal health insurance and robust social safety net systems.

Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy offers a distinctive mechanism of action compared to traditional treatments, arising from additional value dimensions that may not be captured in standard health technology assessments. Cancer patients may have the expectation that immunotherapy provides durable, long-term survival gains. Moreover, some patients may be willing to take a 'risk' to undergo immunotherapy to achieve better survival outcomes. We reviewed quantitative methods that explored patients' risk preferences in their non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment choices, in PubMed (MEDLINE), from January 1, 2015, until July 1, 2022. The consideration of a value dimension ('hope') based on patients' risk-seeking preferences is specifically addressed for the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. We reported that the quantitative methods that aim to measure patients' risk preferences or 'hope' empirically are emerging. Value assessments should not only comprise survival improvements for the mean or median patient but also consider methods that reflect durable, long-term overall survival gains for risk-seeking patients. However, the published evidence for incorporating 'hope' based on patients' stated preferences for uncertain treatment profiles is not strong, and future research could strengthen this evidence base. We encourage further research on the development and validation of quantification methods to incorporate 'hope' and risk preferences of patients treated with immunotherapy for NSCLC and beyond.

Cost-effectiveness of first line nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and methodological quality assessment.

To assess the methodological quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab, we conducted a systematic literature review in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whose tumors express programmed death ligand-1, with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. PubMed, Embase, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the Philips checklist and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. 171 records were identified. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses differed substantially due to the applied modeling methods, sources of costs, health state utilities, and key assumptions. Quality assessment of the included studies highlighted shortcomings in data identification, uncertainty assessment, and methods transparency. Our systematic review and methodology assessment revealed that the methods of estimation of long-term outcomes, quantification of health state utility values, estimation of drug costs, the accuracy of data sources, and their credibility have important implications on the cost-effectiveness outcomes. None of the included studies fulfilled all of the criteria reported in the Philips and the CHEC checklists. To compound the economic consequences presented in these limited number of CEAs, ipilimumab's drug action as a combination therapy poses significant uncertainty. We encourage further research to address the economic consequences of these combination agents in future CEAs and the clinical uncertainties of ipilimumab for NSCLC in future trials.

Cost-Effectiveness of Abemaciclib in Early Breast Cancer Patients: One Size Fits All or Tailoring to Patients' Needs?

Purpose: The addition of two years of abemaciclib treatment to standard adjuvant endocrine therapy in all patients with high risk ER+, HER2- early breast cancer (EBC) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pre-selection of patients with an immediate risk of recurrence within the group of clinically high risk patients using detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) using patient-informed circulating tumor DNA assays during follow-up could enhance efficacy. Here, we investigate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of two years abemaciclib in all high risk HR+, HER2- patients and in MRD-guided high risk patients only. Methods: Two semi-Markov models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding two years of abemaciclib compared to "standard treatment": 1) "abemaciclib all" and 2) "MRD-guided abemaciclib" using MRD-guidance. Data of the MonarchE trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). Since iDFS and overall survival (OS) data of abemaciclib were currently limited, abemaciclib effects were extrapolated using a favorable, intermediate and unfavorable effect scenario. Results: The addition of abemaciclib in all high-risk EBC patients prolonged iDFS slightly (0.04 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs)) and led to higher costs compared to standard ET, leading to a high incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,551,876/QALY. Neither the favorable effect scenario (additional 1.09 QALYs) was cost-effective (ICER €62,935/QALY), using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY. The "MRD-guided abemaciclib" strategy resulted in lower costs and an increase in QALYs (1.27) compared to "standard treatment" in the unfavorable effect scenario. Conclusion: The addition of abemaciclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy in all high-risk ER+, HER2- EBC patients is not cost-effective. However, using MRD detection to justify the addition of abemaciclib treatment dominates standard treatment in this cost-effectiveness analysis. Further evaluation of MRD detection in EBC by means of prospective clinical trials assessing clinical utility is recommended and promising in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Attribution of value for combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy represents a significant breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used in combination with other treatments to provide clinically meaningful outcomes for NSCLC patients. However, there are distinct mechanisms of action that an ICI may provide such clinically meaningful benefits. We focused on the valuation of ICIs when used in combination with existing treatments for NSCLC, by addressing the following questions: (1) do combination ICIs improve clinical outcomes due to independent, rather than synergistic or additive drug action; and (2) how should we attribute value to the constituent parts of combination ICIs? To address these questions, we reviewed the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug database and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2012, until June 1, 2022, to identify approved indications of combination ICIs in NSCLC. For valuation methods, a separate search was conducted in PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and grey literature to identify published value assessment or attribution methods, specifically in the context of combination (cancer) treatments. As of June 1, 2022, the FDA approved eight combination ICI indications for NSCLC. The underlying mechanisms for the improved clinical benefits of these ICI therapies are not well studied. The superiority of combination ICI therapies compared to monotherapy in multiple indications does not indicate whether synergy or additivity is involved, or necessary. Policy statement: We encourage further research on the development of value attribution framework methods for combination therapies to quantify their added health benefits and economic value in the future. Given the valuation challenges of combination ICIs, their mechanism of action poses significant uncertainty and requires further clinical investigation to address whether synergy or additivity is existent.

Costs of Newly Funded Proton Therapy Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy (PT) has characteristics that enable the sparing of healthy, non-cancerous tissue surrounding the radiotherapy target volume better from radiation doses than conventional radiotherapy for patients with cancer. While this innovation entails investment costs, the information about the treatment costs per patient, especially during the start-up phase, is limited. This study aims to calculate the costs of PT at a single center during the start-up phase in the Netherlands. METHODS: The cost of PT per patient was estimated for the treatment indications, head and neck cancer, breast cancer, brain cancer, thorax cancer, chordoma and eye melanoma. A time-driven activity-based costing analysis (TDABC), a methodology that calculates the costs of consumed healthcare resources by a patient, was conducted in a newly established PT center in the Netherlands (HPTC). Both direct (e.g., the human resource costs for medical staff) and indirect costs (e.g., the operating/interest costs, indirect human resource costs and depreciation costs) were included. A scenario analysis was conducted for short-term (2021), middle-term (till 2024) and long-term (after 2024) predicted patient numbers in the PT center. RESULTS: The total cost of PT in 2020 at the center varied between EUR 12,062 for an eye melanoma course and EUR 89,716 for a head and neck course. Overall, indirect costs were the largest cost component. The high indirect costs implied the potential of the scale of economics; according to our estimation, the treatment cost could be reduced to 35% of the current cost when maximum treatment capacity is achieved. CONCLUSION: This study estimated the PT cost delivered in a newly operated treatment center. Scenario analysis for increased patient numbers revealed the potential for cost reductions. Nevertheless, to have an estimation that reflects the matured cost of PT which could be used in cost-effectiveness analysis, a follow-up study assessing the full-fledged situation is recommended.

Health-related quality of life and productivity costs in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen in the Netherlands.

The aim of this study was to describe health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and productivity in Dutch breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen in an adjuvant setting. Patients who started treatment with a standard dose of tamoxifen and who gave written informed consent, were eligible for participation in this trial. A total of 145 patients were asked to complete a survey at 3 months (T1) and 6 months (T2) after initiation of tamoxifen. HRQoL was measured by the EQ-5D-5L and the FACT-B questionnaire, and productivity by using the iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire. At 3 months 137 (95%) and at 6 months 133 (92%) patients responded to the surveys. EQ-5D-5 L utility values for T1 and T2 were 0.81 ± 0.17 and 0.81 ± 0.18, respectively. FACT-B scores for T1 and T2 were 109 ± 17.9 and 108 ± 20.0, respectively. No differences in both EQ-5D-5 L utility and FACT-B scores were found between T1 and T2 (p > 0.05). Age and employment status were statistically significantly associated with FACT-B scores (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively), indicating that younger and unemployed respondents had lower FACT-B scores. Importantly, both short-term and long-term productivity improved during the first six months of tamoxifen treatment (p < 0.05). Here, short-term productivity losses (consisting of absenteeism, presenteeism and unpaid work) for T1 and T2 were estimated at € 855,- and € 396,-, respectively. Long-term productivity losses (consisting of absenteeism) for T1 and T2 were estimated at € 2876,- and € 1104,-, respectively. In conclusion, this study presents HRQoL scores using different instruments and detailed loss of productivity estimates for breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy. The results presented here can be used to inform input parameters in health economic evaluations of interventions for patients with breast cancer in the Netherlands and other Western countries and ultimately support decision making.

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.

Assessing the impact of caregiving on informal caregivers of adults with a mental disorder in OECD countries: A systematic literature review of concepts and their respective questionnaires.

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and review the concepts and questionnaires used to assess the impact of caregiving on caregivers for adults with a mental disorder. With our study, we aimed to provide an overview and categorize the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving, with special attention for the complexity and multi-conceptualization of concepts. Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Trials, Cinahl Plus, Econlit and Google Scholar were systematically searched for articles from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2019. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed studies that assessed the impact of caregiving for informal caregivers of adults with a reported mental disorder by means of a questionnaire. The complete study protocol can be found on PROSPERO (CRD42020157300). A total of 144 questionnaires were identified that assessed the impact of caregiving. Based on similarities in meaning, concepts were classified into 15 concept clusters. The most frequently assessed concept clusters were mental health, caregiving burden, other caregiving consequences, family impact, and overall health-related outcomes. The use of concept clusters differed per diagnosis group, with diagnoses, such as schizophrenia, using a wide range of caregiving impact concepts and other diagnoses, such as personality disorders, only using a limited range of concepts. This is the first study that identified and reviewed the concepts and questionnaires that are used to assess the impact of caregiving. Caregiving is researched from a broad array of perspectives, with the identification of a variety of concepts and dimensions and use of non-specific questionnaires. Despite increasing interest in this field of research, a high degree of variability remains abundant with limited consensus. This can partially be accredited to differences in the naming of concepts. Ultimately, this review can serve as a reference to researchers who wish to assess the impact of caregiving and require further insight into concepts and their respective questionnaires.

Medical Resource Use and Medical Costs for Radiotherapy-Related Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for a proper economic evaluation of new radiotherapies, the economic burden of radiotherapy-induced adverse effects remains unclear. A systematic review has been conducted to identify the existing evidence of healthcare resource use and costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects and also to provide recommendations for including this evidence in economic evaluations. METHODS: This systematic review of healthcare resource use and/or medical costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects was performed up until 2020, focusing on patients with head and neck cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer, eye cancer and breast cancer. RESULTS: Resource use for treating the same adverse effects varied considerably across studies; for instance, the cost for mucositis ranged from USD 2949 to USD 17,244. This broad range could be related to differences in (1) severity of adverse effects in the study population, (2) study design, (3) cost estimation approach and (4) country and clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed unignorable differences for the same adverse effects, which implied that the potential for the economic burden of adverse effects was being overestimated or underestimated in economic evaluation for radiotherapy.

Hospital costs and cosmetic outcome of benign and high-risk breast lesions managed by vacuum-assisted excision versus surgical excision.

OBJECTIVES: Although vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) is a safe and effective alternative to surgical excision (SE), the latter is most commonly used for the management of benign and high-risk breast lesions. To evaluate the healthcare benefit of VAE, hospital costs and cosmetic outcome after VAE were compared to SE. Additionally, the impact of VAE implementation on hospital costs was investigated. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study with two cohorts: "VAE" and "SE". All patients with a benign or high-risk lesion excised by VAE or SE from January 2016 up to December 2019 were included. Cosmetic outcome was measured with the BCTOS-cosmetic subscale, and hospital costs were presented as mean (SD) and median (IQR). RESULTS: During the study period, 258 patients with 295 excised lesions were included. The initial procedure was VAE in 102 patients and SE in 156 patients. Hospital costs after (median € 2324) were significantly lower than before (median € 3,144) implementation of VAE (mean difference € 1,004, p < 0.001), most likely attributable to the lower costs for patients treated with VAE (mean difference € 1,979, p < 0.001). Mean cosmetic outcome was comparable between VAE (median 1.35) and SE (median 1.44, p = 0.802). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing VAE as an alternative treatment option for benign and high-risk breast lesions resulted in a large decrease in hospital costs but a cosmetic benefit of VAE could not be demonstrated in this retrospective study. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Costs associated with the complete patient pathway were included and not only VAE was compared to SE but also the before cohort was compared to the after cohort to demonstrate the benefit of VAE implementation in clinical practice. Additionally, cosmetic outcome was compared between VAE and SE using patient reported outcome measures.

Analysis of patient reported outcomes included in the registrational clinical trials of nivolumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

In the era of value-based oncology care, stakeholders are increasingly using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to guide clinical and regulatory decisions. PROs are also included in health technology assessments to guide patient access, drug reimbursement and pricing. We reviewed PROs collected in the United States Food and Drug Administration approved indications of nivolumab in advanced NSCLC. We analyzed the PRO data reported in the CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), CheckMate 057 (NCT01673867), and CheckMate 017 (NCT01642004) registrational clinical trials, and concluded that nivolumab alleviated symptom burden and improved health status of patients in this setting. However, inability of the included PRO instruments to measure immune-related adverse events, differences in the timing of PRO evaluation between treatment groups, incomplete patient participation at all time points, limited patient participation in the later time points, and interpretation of the longitudinal data are key challenges that impede accurate analysis and validation of PROs.

Barriers to patient enrolment in phase III cancer clinical trials: interviews with clinicians and pharmaceutical industry representatives.

OBJECTIVES: Phase III cancer clinical trials are expensive and time-consuming phases in drug development. Effective patient enrolment can reduce delays and save costs, offering patients an opportunity to benefit from innovative treatments. However, the current evidence base does not fully explain the persistence of barriers to patient enrolment in phase III cancer clinical trials. The aim was to explore clinicians' and pharmaceutical representatives' views on these barriers. DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed. In-depth information was collected from 15 experts in the field of oncology clinical trials, in particular clinical oncologists acting as principal investigators (PIs) and clinical research associates. By means of semistructured interviews, based on a questionnaire derived from our newly developed conceptual framework, they were asked to identify barriers to patient enrolment they had experienced and comment on barriers identified in literature. FINDINGS: Existing knowledge on barriers to patient enrolment was confirmed by all interviewees. Two new key barriers to patient enrolment were identified, that is, insufficient attention to the importance of clinical trial-based research in medical training and a trust gap between PIs and pharmaceutical representatives. A third important barrier was increasingly narrow patient inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of patient enrolment in phase III cancer clinical trials highly depends on the clinicians' willingness to take part in clinical trials. Raising awareness of the importance of clinical trials in medical training and among practising oncologists is recommended. Furthermore, to reduce barriers to patient enrolment, it is essential that both clinicians and pharmaceutical representatives acknowledge each other's expertise, become acquainted with each other's procedures and regulations, and work on building trust relationships. Finally, in accordance with our key findings, we propose to add two new barriers to our newly developed conceptual framework; insufficient attention to clinical trial research in medical training and trust gap.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-Guided Adjuvant Tamoxifen Dosing in Patients with Early Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Prospective TOTAM Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endoxifen is the active metabolite of tamoxifen, and a minimal plasma concentration of 16 nM has been suggested as a threshold above which it is effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer recurrence. The aim of the current analysis was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided tamoxifen dosing. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a Dutch healthcare perspective, using a partitioned survival model and a lifetime horizon. The reduction in subtherapeutic treatment following TDM is modelled as improved rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in comparison to standard tamoxifen treatment. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a series of scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Base-case results estimated a total increase in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for TDM of 0.40 and 0.53, respectively. Total costs for TDM and standard tamoxifen treatment are €32,893 and €39,524, respectively. The TDM intervention results in both more QALYs and less healthcare costs, indicating a dominating effect for TDM. The PSA results indicate that the probability of TDM being cost-effective is 92% when using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. CONCLUSIONS: TDM-guided dose optimization of tamoxifen is estimated to save costs and increase QALYs for early breast cancer patients.

Real-world data from expanded access programmes in health technology assessments: a review of NICE technology appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify and characterise the usage of expanded access (EA) data in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals (TAs). EA offers patients who are ineligible for clinical trials or registered treatment options, access to investigational therapies. Although EA programmes are increasingly used to collect real-world data, it is unknown if and how these date are used in NICE health technology assessments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of NICE appraisals (2010-2020). We automatically downloaded and screened all available appraisal documentation on NICE website (over 8500 documents), searching for EA-related terms. Two reviewers independently labelled the EA usage by disease area, and whether it was used to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use. We qualitatively describe the five appraisals with the most occurrences of EA-related terms. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of TAs that used EA data to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use analyses. RESULTS: In 54.2% (206/380 appraisals), at least one reference to EA was made. 21.1% (80/380) of the TAs used EA data to inform safety (n=43), efficacy (n=47) and/or resource use (n=52). The number of TAs that use EA data remained stable over time, and the extent of EA data utilisation varied by disease area (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: NICE uses EA data in over one in five appraisals. In synthesis with evidence from well-controlled trials, data collected from EA programmes may meaningfully inform cost-effectiveness modelling.