Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the era of vaccination and Omicron: An updated meta-analysis.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was approved to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive outpatients at high risk of progression to severe disease, based on a randomized trial in unvaccinated patients. Effectiveness in vaccinated patients and against Omicron has not yet been confirmed by clinical trial data, but a recent meta-analysis suggested good real-world effectiveness based on 12 studies. We updated this meta-analysis by searching Medline and Embase databases for studies assessing effectiveness of NR on mortality, hospitalization, composite outcome of hospitalization and/or death, and progression to severe disease, published between October 1, 2022 and May 22, 2023. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for vaccinated patients was performed. A total of 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR for the effect of NR on mortality, hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, and progression to severe disease were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.52), 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.51), 0.52 (CI: 0.45-0.61) and 0.54 (CI: 0.41-0.73), respectively. A subgroup analysis on vaccinated patients indicated lower effectiveness of NR on mortality (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.45-0.68), but similar effectiveness for hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, or progression to severe disease (RR: 0.52, 0.58, and 0.66, respectively). This updated meta-analysis robustly confirms the protective effects of NR on severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Survival in stage IV ovarian cancer with increased use of debulking surgery and bevacizumab.

OBJECTIVES: Advanced ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with a 5 year survival probability of <30%. Attempts to improve survival have focused on debulking surgery and systemic therapy. We assessed the evolution of treatment patterns and survival of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with specific attention to changes in survival after introducing bevacizumab. METHODS: Population based data from the Belgian Cancer Registry were coupled with administrative reimbursement data from the compulsory health insurance organizations and the national database where date of death is registered, based on the patient's unique national number. Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer stage IV diagnosed in 2004-17 were included. The proportion of patients who underwent debulking surgery and received bevacizumab was calculated per incidence year. Survival was compared for the three incidence periods (2004-08, 2009-13, 2014-17) and before and after the introduction of bevacizumab. RESULTS: 2034 patients with stage IV epitheial ovarian cancer were included. From 2012 onwards, uptake of bevacizumab increased, with 50% of patients with stage IV ovarian cancer diagnosed in 2017 receiving bevacizumab. The proportion of stage IV patients who underwent debulking surgery also increased over time, from 21.1% in 2004-08 to 50.4% and 45.4% in 2009-13 and 2014-17, respectively. The 3 year observed survival probability fluctuated between 27% and 42% without a trend over time. The increase in debulking surgery was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.98) but the introduction of bevacizumab was not (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03). For patients diagnosed in 2004, the mean cost per patient treated with oncological drugs was about €12 500, which doubled to about €25 000 for patients diagnosed in 2014 or later. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a rise in the use of debulking surgery and the introduction of bevacizumab into clinical practice, no improvement in 3 year survival probability was observed for patients with advanced ovarian cancer in Belgium.

Closing the cycle of innovation in healthcare in Europe.

Pragmatic or practice-oriented comparative effectiveness trials may be conducted to fill the evidence gaps that are revealed after the private sector has performed the trials needed for bringing their product to the market. A tool of increasing importance to identify such evidence gaps is resulting from health technology assessments (HTA) whereby the data derived from clinical research are examined in a systematic manner with reference to effect, safety, as well as additional parameters. Practice-oriented trials are informative for healthcare decision makers, practice-changing and may even be cost-saving for the healthcare payers. There are however only a limited number of funding sources for such trials. Public and private healthcare payers should stimulate the conduct of practice-oriented trials in their effort to maximize patient benefit within the limitation of the available resources. Pragmatic randomized trials can be performed at low cost when based on existing coded electronic health records and as well health registries. Public health decision makers are increasingly taking advantage of results from health technology assessments to support priority setting. In accordance with this it would appear reasonable that decision makers should get more involved in priority setting and funding also in the field of clinical research in order to provide further evidence needed for assessments, reassessments, and subsequent qualified decisions and resource allocations in health care. A closer dialogue and collaboration between the clinical research and HTA communities would facilitate a more efficient utilization of such opportunities.

Contingent non-invasive prenatal testing: an opportunity to improve non-genetic aspects of fetal aneuploidy screening.

BACKGROUND: Several countries today struggle with suboptimal performances in many aspects of the fetal aneuploidy screening process and consider introducing non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT) as a solution. In this study, costs and benefits of different scenarios for contingent NIPT screening in Belgium are evaluated with respect to partial redistribution of the national screening budget into quality improving measures for those screening activities that will be maintained when full NIPT screening is implemented. METHODS: Data from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance and the Study Centre for Perinatal Epidemiology were used in modeled calculations of medical and economic impact of NIPT after prior conventional screening (1) at thresholds 1:300 and 1:600, and (2) at current and improved screening sensitivity. RESULTS: Contingent NIPT screening under current screening conditions would maintain today's 7.9(0)/000 live birth prevalence of Down syndrome (LBPD) at an 11% reduction of overall short-term costs. Lowering the screening threshold to 1:600 or increasing sensitivity by 10% would reduce LBPD to 7(0)/000 at a maximum 3% increase of overall short-term costs. CONCLUSION: Today, in Belgium and in many other countries, full NIPT screening is considered too expensive for immediate introduction into the national fetal aneuploidy screening program. Contingent NIPT screening is both clinically and economically beneficial. A temporary contingent NIPT protocol allows for reinvesting economic savings into optimization of those screening aspects, which are to be maintained in parallel to full NIPT screening.

Survival of patients with unfavorable prognosis cutaneous melanoma with increased use of immunotherapy agents: a population-based study in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Although metastatic cutaneous melanoma is associated with an unfavorable prognosis, innovative therapies including immunomodulating agents and targeted therapies have shown survival benefits in clinical trials. We assessed the impact of the introduction of innovative drugs into clinical practice on the survival of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma during the period 2004-2017, in Belgium. The evolution of associated expenses was also analyzed. METHODS: This is a retrospective population-based study using data from the national Belgian Cancer Registry, compulsory health insurance, and administrative survival data. The immunomodulating drugs were ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, while targeted therapies included vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib. RESULTS: We did not identify a trend for improvement over time. Median survival (years) was 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1-1.8) in 2004-2008, 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) in 2009-2013, and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3-2.4) in 2014-2017, respectively. In contrast, survival improved in those with unknown primary tumor localization. In this group, median survival time was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.4-2.9) in the most recent period, while it was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7-1.3) in 2009-2013, and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6-1.2) in 2004-2008. The uptake of innovative drugs remained modest, with no drug being used by more than 30% of patients. Yearly expenditure was almost non-existent, and gradually increased, reaching several million euros in 2014-2017. CONCLUSION: Patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 showed no apparent improvement in survival. In contrast, increased survival was observed in the subgroup of patients with unknown primary tumor localization.

Should chronic hepatitis B be treated as early as possible?

OBJECTIVES: We studied the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir and entecavir in e antigen positive (CHBe+) and negative (CHBe-) chronic hepatitis B. METHODS: Using a multicenter survey including 544 patients we measured patient quality of life and attributable costs by clinical disease stage. Natural disease progression was studied in 278 patients in a single center. A Markov model was constructed to follow hypothetical cohorts of treated and untreated 40-year-old CHBe+ and CHBe- patients and 50-year-old patients with compensated cirrhosis. RESULTS: We did not find an improvement in quality of life when viral load was reduced under treatment. Transition rates to liver cirrhosis were found to be age-dependent. Assuming equal effectiveness, tenofovir dominates the entecavir strategy because of its lower price in Belgium. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tenofovir after 20 years is more favorable for treating Caucasian cirrhotic patients (mean ICER €29,000/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with treating non-cirrhotic patients (mean ICER €110,000 and 131,000/QALY for CHB e+ and e-, respectively). Within the non-cirrhotic patients the ICER decreases with increasing cohort starting age from 30 to 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: Results of long-term models for tenofovir or entecavir treatment of CHB need to be interpreted with caution as long-term trials with hard end points are lacking. Especially the effect on HCC remains highly uncertain. Based on cost-effectiveness considerations such antiviral treatment should be targeted at patients with cirrhosis or at risk of rapid progression to this disease stage.

Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions.

AIM: To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry. METHODS: We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context. FINDINGS: Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

Belgian observational survival data (incidence years 2004-2017) and expenditure for innovative oncology drugs in twelve cancer indications.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency typically approve market access for cancer drugs based on surrogate end-points, which do not always translate into substantiated improvements in outcomes that matter the most to patients, i.e. survival and quality of life. These drugs often, also, have a high price tag. We assessed whether there was an increase in cancer drug expenditure for a broad selection of indications, and whether this correlates with increased overall survival. METHODS: This cohort study used Belgian Cancer Registry data from 125,692 patients (12 cancer indications, incidence period 2004-2017), which was linked to reimbursement and survival data. This reliably represents the Belgian situation. One-to-five year observed survival probability, median survival time, oncology drug expenditure and mean oncology drug cost per patient were reviewed. FINDINGS: In almost all indications, total expenditure and average treatment cost for oncology drugs increased over the years (2004-2017). In contrast, mixed findings are observed for the evolution in overall survival probability and median survival time. While an absolute improvement in the 3-year survival probability of about 10% is noticed in non-small-cell lung cancer and chronic myeloid leukaemia, improvements in about half of the other indications are limited or even absent. INTERPRETATION: The Belgian observational data indicate that assuming 'innovative' oncology drugs always add value in terms of improved survival is often unjustified. The literature also highlights the problem of using surrogate end-points, and the lack of comparative evidence showing an added value of oncology drugs for both survival and quality of life at market approval or during the post-marketing phase. Comparative studies should be conducted in the pre-marketing phase that are suitable for registration purposes, aid reimbursement decisions and support physicians and patients when making treatment decisions.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

Pre-market clinical evaluations of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: High-quality clinical evidence is most often lacking when novel high-risk devices enter the European market. At the same time, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is often initiated as a requirement for obtaining market access in the US. Should coverage in Europe be postponed until RCT data are available? We studied the premarket clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe compared with the US, and with medicines, where appropriate. METHODS: The literature and regulatory documents were checked. Representatives from industry, Competent Authorities, Notified Bodies, Ethics Committees, and HTA agencies were consulted. We also discuss patient safety and the transparency of information. RESULTS: In contrast to the US, there is no requirement in Europe to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of high-risk devices in the premarket phase. Patients in Europe can thus have earlier access to a potentially lifesaving device, but at the risk of insufficiently documented efficacy and safety. Variations in the stringency of clinical reviews, both at the level of Notified Bodies and Competent Authorities, do not guarantee patient safety. We tried to document the design of premarket trials in Europe and number of patients exposed, but failed as this information is not made public. Furthermore, the Helsinki Declaration is not followed with respect to the registration and publication of premarket trials. CONCLUSIONS: For innovative high-risk devices, new EU legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using an RCT if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.

Effect of anti-interleukin drugs in patients with COVID-19 and signs of cytokine release syndrome (COV-AID): a factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Infections with SARS-CoV-2 continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 blockade have been proposed as therapeutic strategies in COVID-19, but study outcomes have been conflicting. We sought to study whether blockade of the IL-6 or IL-1 pathway shortened the time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, hypoxia, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome across 16 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients had a proven diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms between 6 and 16 days, a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) of less than 350 mm Hg on room air or less than 280 mm Hg on supplemental oxygen, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome in their serum (either a single ferritin measurement of more than 2000 µg/L and immediately requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation, or a ferritin concentration of more than 1000 µg/L, which had been increasing over the previous 24 h, or lymphopenia below 800/mL with two of the following criteria: an increasing ferritin concentration of more than 700 µg/L, an increasing lactate dehydrogenase concentration of more than 300 international units per L, an increasing C-reactive protein concentration of more than 70 mg/L, or an increasing D-dimers concentration of more than 1000 ng/mL). The COV-AID trial has a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate IL-1 blockade versus no IL-1 blockade and IL-6 blockade versus no IL-6 blockade. Patients were randomly assigned by means of permuted block randomisation with varying block size and stratification by centre. In a first randomisation, patients were assigned to receive subcutaneous anakinra once daily (100 mg) for 28 days or until discharge, or to receive no IL-1 blockade (1:2). In a second randomisation step, patients were allocated to receive a single dose of siltuximab (11 mg/kg) intravenously, or a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously, or to receive no IL-6 blockade (1:1:1). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement, defined as time from randomisation to an increase of at least two points on a 6-category ordinal scale or to discharge from hospital alive. The primary and supportive efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04330638) and EudraCT (2020-001500-41) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 4, and Dec 6, 2020, 342 patients were randomly assigned to IL-1 blockade (n=112) or no IL-1 blockade (n=230) and simultaneously randomly assigned to IL-6 blockade (n=227; 114 for tocilizumab and 113 for siltuximab) or no IL-6 blockade (n=115). Most patients were male (265 [77%] of 342), median age was 65 years (IQR 54-73), and median Systematic Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at randomisation was 3 (2-4). All 342 patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. The estimated median time to clinical improvement was 12 days (95% CI 10-16) in the IL-1 blockade group versus 12 days (10-15) in the no IL-1 blockade group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·73-1·21]). For the IL-6 blockade group, the estimated median time to clinical improvement was 11 days (95% CI 10-16) versus 12 days (11-16) in the no IL-6 blockade group (HR 1·00 [0·78-1·29]). 55 patients died during the study, but no evidence for differences in mortality between treatment groups was found. The incidence of serious adverse events and serious infections was similar across study groups. INTERPRETATION: Drugs targeting IL-1 or IL-6 did not shorten the time to clinical improvement in this sample of patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, low SOFA score, and low baseline mortality risk. FUNDING: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center and VIB Grand Challenges program.

Infectious diseases epidemiology, quantitative methodology, and clinical research in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspective from a European country.

Starting from historic reflections, the current SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19 pandemic is examined from various perspectives, in terms of what it implies for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the modeling and monitoring of the epidemic, the development of early-warning systems, the study of mortality, prevalence estimation, diagnostic and serological testing, vaccine development, and ultimately clinical trials. Emphasis is placed on how the pandemic had led to unprecedented speed in methodological and clinical development, the pitfalls thereof, but also the opportunities that it engenders for national and international collaboration, and how it has simplified and sped up procedures. We also study the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials in other indications. We note that it has placed biostatistics, epidemiology, virology, infectiology, and vaccinology, and related fields in the spotlight in an unprecedented way, implying great opportunities, but also the need to communicate effectively, often amidst controversy.

Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Belgium: do not forget about cervical cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of adding a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in 12-year-old females to the recommended cervical cancer screening in Belgium is examined. Moreover, the health and economic consequences of a potential decline in screening uptake after initiation of a HPV vaccination program are investigated. METHODS: A static Markov model is developed to estimate the direct effect of vaccination on precancerous lesions and cervical cancers. RESULTS: Vaccination is estimated to avoid 20 percent of the cervical cancers occurring in a 12-year-old girls' cohort and to cost 32,665 euro per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (95 percent credibility interval [CrI]: 17,447 euro to 68,078 euro), assuming a booster injection after 10 years, a limited duration of protection and discounting costs and effects at 3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Assuming lifelong protection, HPV vaccination is estimated to cost 14,382 euro (95 percent CrI: 9,238 euro to 25,644 euro) per QALY gained, while avoiding 50 percent of the cervical cancer cases. In the base-case, a 10 percent reduction in screening compliance after vaccination obliterates the effect of vaccination on cervical cancer cases avoided, whereas further declines in the level of screening compliance even turned out to be detrimental for the cohort's health, inducing a mean loss in QALYs and life-year gained compared with the situation prevaccination. CONCLUSIONS: An HPV vaccination program should only be considered if the level of screening after vaccination can be maintained.

Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies.

Since its introduction more than a decade ago, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has spread to most radiotherapy departments worldwide for a wide range of indications. The technique has been rapidly implemented, despite an incomplete understanding of its advantages and weaknesses, the challenges of IMRT planning, delivery, and quality assurance, and the substantially increased cost compared with non-IMRT. Many publications discuss the theoretical advantages of IMRT dose distributions. However, the key question is whether the use of IMRT can be exploited to obtain a clinically relevant advantage over non-modulated external-beam radiation techniques. To investigate which level of evidence supports the routine use of IMRT for various disease sites, we did a review of clinical studies that reported on overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, treatment-induced toxicity, or surrogate endpoints. This review shows evidence of reduced toxicity for various tumour sites by use of IMRT. The findings regarding local control and overall survival are generally inconclusive.

Budgeting of non-commercial clinical trials: development of a budget tool by a public funding agency.

BACKGROUND: Investigator-led multicentre randomised trials are essential to generate evidence on the optimal use of medical interventions. These non-commercial trials are often hampered by underfunding, which may lead to difficulties in gathering a team with the necessary expertise, a delayed trial start, slow recruitment and even early trial discontinuation. As a new public funder of pragmatic clinical trials, the KCE Trials programme was committed to correctly pay all trial activities in order to assure timely delivery of high-quality trial results. As no appropriate trial budget tool was readily publicly available that took into account the costs for the sponsor as well as the costs for participating sites, we developed a tool to make the budgeting of a clinical trial efficient, transparent and fair across applicants. METHODS: All trial-related activities of the sponsor and sites were categorised, and cost drivers were identified. All elements were included in a spreadsheet tool allowing the sponsor team to calculate in detail the various activities of a clinical trial and to appreciate the budget impact of specific cost drivers, e.g. a delay in recruitment. Hourly fees by role were adapted from published data. Fixed amounts per activity were developed when appropriate. RESULTS: This publicly available tool has already been used for 17 trials funded since the start of the KCE Trials programme in 2016, and it continues to be used and improved. This budget tool is used together with additional risk-reducing measures such as a multistep selection process with advance payments, a recruitment feasibility check by sponsor and funder, a close monitoring of study progress and a milestone-based payment schedule with the last payment made when the manuscript is submitted. CONCLUSIONS: The budget tool helps the KCE Trials programme to answer relevant research questions in a timely way, within budget and with high quality, a necessary condition to achieve impact of this programme for patients, clinical practice and healthcare payers.

Trastuzumab in early stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: Although trastuzumab is traditionally used in metastatic breast cancer treatment, studies reported on the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab in adjuvant setting for the treatment of early stage breast cancer in HER2+ tumors. We estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of reimbursing trastuzumab in this indication from a payer's perspective. METHODS: We constructed a health economic model. Long-term consequences of preventing patients to progress to metastatic breast cancer and side effects such as congestive heart failure were taken into account. Uncertainty was handled applying probabilistic modeling and through probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the HERA scenario, applying an arbitrary threshold of euro30000 per life-year gained, early stage breast cancer treatment with trastuzumab is cost-effective for 9 out of 15 analyzed subgroups (according to age and stage). In contrast, treatment according to the FinHer scenario is cost-effective in 14 subgroups. Furthermore, the FinHer regimen is most of the times cost saving with an average incremental cost of euro668, euro-1045, and euro-6869 for respectively stages I, II and III breast cancer patients whereas the HERA regimen is never cost saving due to the higher initial treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: The model shows better cost-effectiveness for the 9-week initial treatment (FinHer) compared to no trastuzumab treatment than for the 1-year post-chemotherapy treatment (HERA). Both from a medical and an economic point of view, the 9-week initial treatment regimen with trastuzumab shows promising results and justifies the initiation of a large comparative trial with a 1-year regimen.

Introduction of high-risk medical devices: national measures that can be taken under the current European legislation to put the patient interest central.

INTRODUCTION: High-risk medical devices may not always provide a therapeutic added value to patients. In Europe, no proof of efficacy is required to receive a CE label, making it difficult for policymakers to decide on reimbursement of (often expensive) high-risk medical devices. We explore, within the framework of the European legislation, the possibilities at a national level for a guided introduction of such devices. Areas covered: HTA and legal experts worked in close collaboration with medical specialists and government representatives making a legal analysis of what is possible under the (revised) European and national legislation. Expert commentary: At national level, measures for a better evidence-based introduction can be taken that are not in contradiction with the European regulation. From a legal point of view, all restrictive measures must be justified, necessary and proportional. Several measures are possible, a.o. making use of reference centres, applying the IDEAL framework or the 6-step plan set up by the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists. In conclusion, within the framework of the (revised) European legislation, measures at national level can be taken to temporarily restrict and follow up the use of high-risk medical devices with a greater focus on the therapeutic added value for the patients.