Hepatitis B screening before rituximab therapy: a multicentre South Australian study of adherence.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to administration of rituximab, due to high risk of HBV reactivation in at-risk patients. AIMS: To determine: (i) adherence to the South Australian (SA) protocol for HBV screening; (ii) HBV prevalence in patients receiving rituximab; and (iii) outcomes of patients at risk of HBV reactivation. METHODS: All patients commenced on rituximab at the six major SA public hospitals during a 12-month period were included in the study. Adherence was assessed by documentation of both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) prior to initiation of rituximab. Patients were observed for a minimum of 6 months following rituximab initiation. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the study. The main indication for rituximab therapy was haematological malignancy (76.0%). Two hundred and nine (47.7%) failed to receive appropriate HBV screening, 86 (19.6%) had neither HBsAg nor HBcAb performed, and 119 (27.2%) had only HBsAg performed. The identified prevalence of at-risk cases (either HBsAg- or HBcAb-positive) within the study population was 4.6% (20/438 cases). One case of HBV reactivation was identified, but none led to acute liver failure, transplantation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Poor adherence to HBV screening protocols suggests the need for targeted clinician education and system redesign. While the rate of reactivation was low, the prevalence of at-risk patients in this population was high and justifies further initiatives to increase adherence rates to HBV screening pre-rituximab.

Using Expert Elicitation to Adjust Published Intervention Effects to Reflect the Local Context.

Background. Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform decisions to fund new health service interventions. One barrier is the relevance of published intervention effects to the local setting, given these effects can strongly reflect the original evaluation context. Expert elicitation methods provide a structured approach to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates, which can then be used in local-level economic evaluations to increase their local relevance. Expert elicitation was used to adjust published effect estimates for 2 interventions targeting the prevention of inpatient hypoglycemia. Methods. Elicitation was undertaken with 6 clinical experts. They were systematically presented with information regarding potential differences in patient characteristics and quality of care between the published study and local contexts, and regarding the design and application of the published study. The experts then assessed the intervention effects and provided estimates of the most realistic, most pessimistic, and most optimistic intervention effect sizes in the local context. Results. The experts estimated both interventions would be less effective in the local setting compared with the published effect estimates. For one intervention, the experts expected the lower complexity of admitted patients in the local setting would reduce the intervention's effectiveness. For the other intervention, the reduced effect was largely driven by differences in the scope of implementation (hospital-wide in the local setting compared with targeted implementation in the evaluation). Conclusions. The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article provide a feasible and acceptable approach to assess and adjust published intervention effects to better reflect expected effects in the local context. Further development and application of these methods is proposed to facilitate the use of local-level economic evaluation. Highlights: Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform their decisions on the funding of new health service interventions. One barrier to use is the relevance of published intervention evaluations to the local setting.Expert elicitation methods provide a structured way to consider differences between the evaluation and local settings and to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates for use in local economic evaluations.The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article offer a feasible and acceptable approach to adjusting published intervention effects to better reflect the effects expected in the local context. This increases the relevance of economic evaluations for local decision makers.

Comparative Risk of Gout Flares When Initiating or Escalating Various Urate-Lowering Therapy: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically examined comparative gout flare risk after initiation or escalation of different urate-lowering therapies (ULTs), comparative flare risk with and without concomitant flare prophylaxis, adverse event rates associated with flare prophylaxis, and optimal duration of flare prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases and clinical trial registries from inception to November 2021 for trials investigating adults with gout initiating or escalating ULT. We performed random effects network meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) between treatments. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We identified 3,775 records, of which 29 publications (27 trials) were included. When compared to placebo plus prophylaxis, the RR of flares ranged from 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.33) for febuxostat 40 mg plus prophylaxis to RR 2.65 [95% CI 1.58-4.45] for febuxostat 80 mg plus lesinurad 400 mg plus prophylaxis. Compared to ULT alone, the RR of flares was lower for ULT plus rilonacept 160 mg (RR 0.35 [95% CI 0.25-0.50]), ULT plus rilonacept 80 mg (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.31-0.60]) and ULT plus colchicine (RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.35-0.72]). There was limited evidence for other flare prophylaxis and on prophylaxis harms and optimal duration. Primarily because of missing outcome data and bias in the selection of reported results, 71.4% and 63.4% of studies were assessed as high risk of bias for flares and adverse events, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RR of flares when introducing ULT varies depending on ULT drug and dosing strategies. There were limited data on ULT escalation. Flare prophylaxis with colchicine and rilonacept reduces flare incidence. More research is required on the harms and optimal duration of prophylaxis.