Study protocol for a multicenter randomised controlled trial on the (cost)effectiveness of biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT versus biopsy alone in patients with primary irresectable glioblastoma (EMITT trial).

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary, malignant brain tumour with a 5-year survival of 5%. If possible, a glioblastoma is resected and further treated with chemoradiation therapy (CRT), but resection is not feasible in about 30% of cases. Current standard of care in these cases is a biopsy followed by CRT. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been suggested as a minimally invasive alternative when surgery is not feasible. However, high-quality evidence directly comparing LITT with standard of care is lacking, precluding any conclusions on (cost-)effectiveness. We therefore propose a multicenter randomized controlled study to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of MR-guided LITT as compared to current standard of care (EMITT trial). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EMITT trial will be a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Seven Dutch hospitals will participate in this study. In total 238 patients will be randomized with 1:1 allocation to receive either biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT therapy followed by CRT or the current standard of care being biopsy followed by CRT. The primary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) (non-inferiority) using EORTC QLQ-C30 + BN20 scores at 5 months after randomization and overall survival (superiority). Secondary outcomes comprise cost-effectiveness (healthcare and societal perspective) and HR-QoL of life over an 18-month time horizon, progression free survival, tumour response, disease specific survival, longitudinal effects, effects on adjuvant treatment, ablation percentage and complication rates. DISCUSSION: The EMITT trial will be the first RCT on the effectiveness of LITT in patients with glioblastoma as compared with current standard of care. Together with the Dutch Brain Tumour Patient association, we hypothesize that LITT may improve overall survival without substantially affecting patients' quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05318612).

Psychosomatic therapy for patients frequently attending primary care with medically unexplained symptoms, the CORPUS trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are highly prevalent and pose a burden both on patients and on health care. In a pilot study psychosomatic therapy delivered by specialised therapists for patients with MUS showed promising results with regard to patient's acceptability, feasibility and effects on symptoms. The aim of this study is to establish whether psychosomatic therapy by specialised psychosomatic exercise therapists is cost- effective in decreasing symptoms and improving functioning in patients who frequently consult their general practitioner (GP) with MUS. METHODS: A randomised effectiveness trial with an economic evaluation in primary care with 158 patients aged 18 years and older who are frequently consulting their GP with MUS. Patients will be assigned to psychosomatic therapy in addition to usual care or usual care only. Psychosomatic therapy is a multi-component and tailored intervention, aiming to empower patients by applying psycho-education, relaxation techniques, mindfulness, cognitive approaches and/or graded activity. Patients assigned to the psychosomatic therapy receive 6 to 12 sessions of psychosomatic therapy, of 30-45 min each, delivered by a specialised exercise or physical therapist. Primary outcome measure is patient-specific functioning and disability, measured with the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcome measures are symptom severity, consultation frequency and referrals to secondary care, patient satisfaction, quality of life and costs. Assessments will be carried out at baseline, and after 4 and 12 months. An economic evaluation alongside the trial will be conducted from a societal perspective, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome measure. Furthermore, a mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: We expect that psychosomatic therapy in primary care for patients who frequently attend the GP for MUS will improve symptoms and daily functioning and disability, while reducing consultation frequency and referrals to secondary care. We expect that the psychosomatic therapy provides value for money for patients with MUS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, ID: NL7157 (NTR7356). Registered 13 July 2018.

The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration-A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective.

BACKGROUND: The discussion on the use of bevacizumab is still ongoing and often doctors are deterred from using bevacizumab due to legal or political issues. Bevacizumab is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment option for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), albeit unregistered for the disease. Therefore, in some countries ophthalmologists use the equally effective but expensive drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept. We describe the economic consequences of this dilemma surrounding AMD treatment from a societal perspective. METHODS: We modelled cost-effectiveness of treatment with ranibizumab (as-needed), aflibercept (bimonthly) and bevacizumab (as-needed). Effectiveness was estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis. The drug with the most favourable cost-effectiveness profile compared to bevacizumab was used for threshold analyses. First, we determined how much we overspend per injection. Second, we calculated the required effectiveness to justify the current price and the reasonable price for a drug leading to optimal vision. Finally, we estimated how much Europe overspends if bevacizumab is not first choice. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment costs €27,087 per year, about €4,000 less than aflibercept and €6,000 less than ranibizumab. With similar effectiveness for all drugs as shown by meta-analysis, bevacizumab was the most cost-effective. Aflibercept was chosen for threshold analyses. Aflibercept costs €943 per injection, but we determined that the maximum price to be cost-effective is €533. Alternatively, at its current price, aflibercept should yield about twice the visual gain. Even when optimal vision can be achieved, the maximum price for any treatment is €37,453 per year. Most importantly, Europe overspends €335 million yearly on AMD treatment when choosing aflibercept over bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective treatment for AMD, yet is not the standard of care across Europe. The registered drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept lead to large overspending without additional health benefits. Health authorities should consider taking steps to implement bevacizumab into clinical practice as first choice.

Uncertainty on the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in premenopausal women with atrial fibrillation: empirical evidence needed.

BACKGROUND: Novel anticoagulations (NOACs) are increasingly prescribed for the prevention of stroke in premenopausal women with atrial fibrillation. Small studies suggest NOACs are associated with a higher risk of abnormal uterine bleeds than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Because there is no direct empirical evidence on the benefit/risk profile of rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in this subgroup, we synthesize available indirect evidence, estimate decision uncertainty on the treatments, and assess whether further research in premenopausal women is warranted. METHODS: A Markov model with annual cycles and a lifetime horizon was developed comparing rivaroxaban (the most frequently prescribed NOAC in this population) and VKAs. Clinical event rates, associated quality adjusted life years, and health care costs were obtained from different sources and adjusted for gender, age, and history of stroke. A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations was then performed for a hypothetical cohort of premenopausal women, estimated to be reflective of the population of premenopausal women with AF in The Netherlands. RESULTS: In the simulation, rivaroxaban is the better treatment option for the prevention of ischemic strokes in premenopausal women in 61% of the iterations. Similarly, this is 98% for intracranial hemorrhages, 24% for major abnormal uterine bleeds, 1% for minor abnormal uterine bleeds, 9% for other major extracranial hemorrhages, and 23% for other minor extracranial hemorrhages. There is a 78% chance that rivaroxaban offers the most quality-adjusted life years. The expected value of perfect information in The Netherlands equals 122 quality-adjusted life years and 22 million Euros. CONCLUSIONS: There is a 22% risk that rivaroxaban offers a worse rather than a better benefit/risk profile than vitamin K antagonists in premenopausal women. Although rivaroxaban is preferred over VKAs in this population, further research is warranted, and should preferably take the shape of an internationally coordinated registry study including other NOACs.

Women's and healthcare professionals' preferences for prenatal testing: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates pregnant women's and healthcare professionals' preferences regarding specific prenatal screening and diagnostic test characteristics. METHOD: A discrete choice experiment was developed to assess preferences for prenatal tests that differed in seven attributes: minimal gestational age, time to test results, level of information, detection rate, false positive rate, miscarriage risk and costs. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 596 (70.2%) pregnant women and 297 (51.7%) healthcare professionals, of whom 507 (85.1%) and 283 (95.3%), respectively, were included in further analyses as their choice behavior indicated prenatal testing was an option to them. Comparison of results showed differences in relative importance attached to attributes, further reflected by differences in willingness to trade between attributes. Pregnant women are willing to accept a less accurate test to obtain more information on fetal chromosomal status or to exclude the risk of procedure-related miscarriage. Healthcare professionals consider level of information and miscarriage risk to be most important as well but put more emphasis on timing and accuracy. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women and healthcare professionals differ significantly in their preferences regarding prenatal test characteristics. Healthcare professionals should take these differences into consideration when counseling pregnant women on prenatal testing.