Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service. RESULTS: PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.

How Least Developed to Lower-Middle Income Countries Use Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Review.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary tool to inform healthcare decision-making. HTA has been implemented in high-income countries (HIC) for several decades but has only recently seen a growing investment in low- and middle-income countries. A scoping review was undertaken to define and compare the role of HTA in least developed and lower middle-income countries (LLMIC). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2015 to August 2021. A matrix comprising categories on HTA objectives, methods, geographies, and partnerships was used for data extraction and synthesis to present our findings. The review identified 50 relevant articles. The matrix was populated and sub-divided into further categories as appropriate. We highlight topical aspects of HTA, including initiatives to overcome well-documented challenges around data and capacity development, and identify gaps in the research for consideration. Those areas we found to be under-studied or under-utilized included disinvestment, early HTA/implementation, system-level interventions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. We consider broad practical implications for decision-makers and researchers aiming to achieve greater interconnectedness between HTA and health systems and generate recommendations that LLMIC can use for HTA implementation. Whilst HIC may have led the way, LLMIC are increasingly beginning to develop HTA processes to assist in their healthcare decision-making. This review provides a forward-looking model that LLMIC can point to as a reference for their own implementation. We hope this can be seen as timely and useful contributions to optimize the impact of HTA in an era of investment and expansion and to encourage debate and implementation.