Association between stress, depression or anxiety and cancer: Rapid review of reviews.

Background: Several studies have suggested links between psychological stress, depression or anxiety, and cancer incidence or outcomes. Existing systematic reviews have addressed this question, with differing results. Aims: This rapid systematic umbrella review summarises existing reviews assessing the association between psychological stress, depression or anxiety and cancer incidence or cancer outcomes. Methods: Systematic reviews assessing stress, depression or anxiety and cancer were identified via searches of MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2010 to November 2020. Results: Twelve systematic reviews were included, summarising cohort and case-control studies, most of which adjusted for confounders. Regarding cancer incidence, one large meta-analysis reported a significant association between depression/anxiety and cancer incidence, while another showed a non-significant trend. Two further meta-analyses reported significant associations between stressful life events and cancer incidence. Conversely, two meta-analyses of work stress showed no significant association with cancer incidence. Regarding outcomes among cancer patients, three meta-analyses reported significant associations between depression/anxiety and cancer mortality, while another reported a non-significant trend for depression and cancer recurrence. One meta-analysis reported a significant association between partner bereavement and cancer mortality, while another showed no significant association between work stress and cancer mortality. Conclusions: There is consistent evidence for an association between psychological stress, depression or anxiety and cancer incidence in general populations, and some evidence for an association with mortality in cancer populations. Future research may focus on confirmation of these findings, as well as the role of social support and stress-reducing interventions in buffering against these effects.

Systematic review of time lag between antibiotic use and rise of resistant pathogens among hospitalized adults in Europe.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) causes substantial health and economic burden to individuals, healthcare systems and societies globally. Understanding the temporal relationship between antibiotic consumption and antibiotic resistance in hospitalized patients can better inform antibiotic stewardship activities and the time frame for their evaluation. Objectives: This systematic review examined the temporal relationship between antibiotic use and development of antibiotic resistance for 42 pre-defined antibiotic and pathogen combinations in hospitalized adults in Europe. Methods: Searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were undertaken from 2000 to August 2021. Pathogens of interest were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecium, CoNS, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii complex. Results: Twenty-eight ecological studies and one individual-level study were included. Ecological studies were predominantly retrospective in design (19 studies) and of reasonable (20 studies) to high (8 studies) methodological quality. Of the eight pathogens of interest, no relevant data were identified for S. pneumoniae and CoNS. Across all pathogens, the time-lag data from the 28 ecological studies showed a similar pattern, with the majority of studies reporting lags ranging from 0 to 6 months. Conclusions: Development of antibiotic resistance for the investigated antibiotic/pathogen combinations tends to occur over 0 to 6 months following exposure within European hospitals. This information could inform planning of antibiotic stewardship activities in hospital settings.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis of intermediate surgical risk in Singapore.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis with intermediate surgical risk in Singapore. METHODS: A de novo Markov model with three health states - stroke with long-term sequelae, no stroke, and death - was developed and simulated using Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 iterations over a five-year time horizon from the Singapore healthcare system perspective. A 3% annual discount rate for costs and outcomes and monthly cycle lengths were used. By applying the longest available published clinical evidence, simulated patients received either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and were at risk of adverse events (AEs) such as moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR). RESULTS: When five-year PARTNER 2A data was applied, base-case analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for TAVI compared to SAVR was US$315,760 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The high ICER was due to high incremental implantation and procedure costs of TAVI compared to SAVR, and marginal improvement of 0.10 QALYs as simulated mortality of TAVI exceeded SAVR at 3.75 years post-implantation. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICERs were most sensitive to cost of PAR, utility values of SAVR patients, and cost of TAVI and SAVR implants and procedures. When disutilities for AEs were additionally applied, the ICER decreased to US$300,070 per QALY gained. TAVI was dominated by SAVR when the time horizon increased to 20 years. Clinical outcomes projected from one-year PARTNER S3i data further reduced the ICER to US$86,337 per QALY gained for TAVI, assuming early all-cause mortality benefits from TAVI continued to persist. This assumption was undermined when longer term data showed that TAVI's early mortality benefits diminished at five years. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION: TAVI is unlikely to be cost-effective in intermediate surgical-risk patients compared to SAVR in Singapore.

The Incidence and Costs of Adverse Events Associated with Antidepressants: Results from a Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Multi-Country Economic Model.

Purpose: There is variation in the safety profile of antidepressants. Rates of adverse events along with the costs of treating them can be an important factor influencing the choice of depression treatment. This study sought to estimate the comparative safety of commonly prescribed antidepressants, and how the costs of treating these varied across European countries. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted (in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) to identify placebo-controlled trials reporting rates of at least one type of sexual dysfunction, weight change, insomnia, anxiety, and anhedonia. Eight antidepressants were considered: duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine. This evidence was synthesised via Bayesian random effects network meta-analyses to provide comparative estimates of safety. A systematic search identified country-specific costs of managing depression and adverse events of antidepressants. Evidence on costs and safety was combined in an economic model to provide country-specific costs for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, and Poland. Results: Trazodone had the lowest rates of both insomnia (odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.31 to 1.38) and anxiety (0.13, <0.01 to 1.80). All antidepressants were associated with increased rates of sexual dysfunction relative to placebo. Weight change was largest for fluoxetine (kg change -1.01, -1.40 to -0.60) and sertraline (-1.00, -1.36 to -0.65), although heterogeneity was extreme for this outcome. No evidence was identified for anhedonia. Total costs were lowest for trazodone in all nine of the countries evaluated. This was primarily due to reduced rates of treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Trazodone generally had the best safety profile of the antidepressants evaluated. This led to healthcare costs being lowest for trazodone in all nine European countries, emphasising the importance of considering rates of adverse events when choosing a pharmacological treatment to treat symptoms of depression.

Diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination for detecting oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients with clinically evident oral lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination (COE) versus incisional or excisional biopsy for the diagnosis of malignant and/or dysplastic lesions in patients with clinically evident lesions. Searches were conducted across five electronic databases from inception to January 2020. Meta-analyses were undertaken, where appropriate. Among 18 included studies, 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis, giving summary estimates for COE of 71% sensitivity and 85% specificity for the diagnosis of dysplastic and/or malignant lesions. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of identifying malignant-only lesions was reported in seven studies, giving a pooled estimate of 88% sensitivity and 81% specificity. Diagnostic accuracy of different types of dental/medical professionals in identifying dysplastic or malignant lesions gave varying estimates of sensitivity and specificity across three studies. Further research is needed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of COE for early detection of dysplastic and malignant oral lesions.

Schizophrenia Treatment with Second-Generation Antipsychotics: A Multi-Country Comparison of the Costs of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Adverse Events and Weight Gain.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular and metabolic adverse events are costly to treat, and their incidence is increased amongst people with schizophrenia, with different rates observed for second-generation antipsychotics. To inform treatment choice, this study sought to estimate the lifetime costs associated with antipsychotic choice, and how these costs varied across European countries. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted to identify evidence on effectiveness and costs. A Markov model was developed to assess the costs of ten antipsychotics: aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. Costs were obtained for seven countries: Italy, Hungary, France, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. The costs considered were adverse events (including diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke and weight gain), drug costs, relapse, treatment discontinuation and schizophrenia management. Two adult populations were modelled; initiating either acute or maintenance treatment, with a lifetime horizon for both. RESULTS: Lurasidone was associated with the lowest lifetime costs amongst patients initiating acute treatment compared to all other atypical antipsychotics considered. The second lowest costs were for ziprasidone. These results were observed for all seven countries. The main drivers of cost differences were rates of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, which were lowest for lurasidone, followed by ziprasidone then lumateperone. Costs for managing weight gain were lowest for lurasidone and ziprasidone. Similar results were observed for patients initiating maintenance treatment. CONCLUSION: Diabetes and cardiovascular events are large drivers of lifetime costs for people with schizophrenia. Lurasidone is predicted to have the lowest rates of these adverse events, and so the lowest costs amongst patients initiating acute treatment in seven European countries compared to nine other antipsychotics. Future research should investigate the individual costs of relapse management, including differences in the costs and proportions of hospitalizations.

Obesity, SDGs and ROOTS: a Framework for Impact.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper demonstrates how addressing obesity is vital to achieving several of the Sustainable Development Goals and targets, especially target 3.4 on reducing premature mortality from non-communicable diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent research by the UN notes that countries are not on schedule to achieve the SDGs. It is noted that obesity, neglected in earlier development goals and overlooked by global health funders and policymakers, is playing a role in major health and development issues. As such, the ROOTS framework developed by the World Obesity Federation offers a roadmap towards attaining several of the goals and targets. By making these connections, this paper shows that obesity is a relevant and essential component of the global development agenda and must be prioritised to successfully achieve targets related to NCD mortality.

Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.

BACKGROUND: The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. METHODS: Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making. RESULTS: We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide. FURTHER RESEARCH: Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In May 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration granted the first approval for a cancer treatment based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated (the tumour site); that is, a site-agnostic or 'histology-independent' indication was granted. Research from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suggests that there are approximately 20 technologies currently in development for histology-independent indications. The first marketing authorisation was granted in Europe in 2019. Histology-independent treatments have the potential to have important effects in patient populations for whom there are currently limited or no available treatment options. However, it is also important to ensure that the use of these treatments in the NHS is supported by systematic and robust assessments of clinical evidence (i.e. how well the medicine or treatment works) and economic evidence (i.e. the medicine's value for money). These assessments are undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, usually for treatments targeting specific tumours sites. However, a histology-independent marketing authorisation would probably include many tumour sites and it is not possible for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to conduct a separate assessment for each tumour site for which the treatment could be beneficial. As a result, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence needs to consider how these products can be appropriately assessed without creating unnecessary delays in patient access. This research explores the extent to which the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's existing approaches for assessing clinical and economic value can be applied to histology-independent indications, and any changes that might be required. We explore the nature and amount of evidence that is typically available at the point of initial marketing authorisation and develop recommendations to establish the evidence and analyses required to help inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's decisions. We use case studies to highlight possible challenges and to explore ways that these challenges might be addressed. This research will help to inform future National Institute for Health and Care Excellence policy on how to appraise cancer drugs with histology-independent indications. It will also inform the development of guidance for those developing these treatments to help their understanding of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments that will be required to inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's appraisals.

Obesity: a Ghost at the Feast of the Sustainable Development Goals.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite its rapidly rising global prevalence, obesity is not featured in any of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This review highlights the multiple points at which obesity is affected by the Goals. RECENT FINDINGS: At least 14 out of the 17 thematic SDG targets play a role in driving the obesity epidemic, including health, food, education, water quality, land and ocean quality, urbanisation and employment. Although the SDGs recognise the need to reduce 'malnutrition in all its forms', the Goals underplay the role of urbanisation and unregulated markets on dietary health. Furthermore, adherence to the SDGs may be weak and compromised by conflicted interests. Nonetheless, governments have shown that they can, when pressed, respond to health challenges, and we anticipate how the rise in the numbers of people experiencing excess bodyweight may itself lead to greater demand for collective responsibility to ensure our environments are fully health-creating.

Correction to: Obesity: a Ghost at the Feast of the Sustainable Development Goals.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-020-00417-7.

What are the cost-savings and health benefits of improving detection and management for six high cardiovascular risk conditions in England? An economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost savings and health benefits of improving detection of individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in England, to determine to which patient subgroups these benefits arise, and to compare different strategies for subsequent management. DESIGN: An economic analysis using the School for Public Health Research CVD Prevention Model. SETTING: England 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 16 and older with one or more high cardiovascular risk conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and high cholesterol. INTERVENTIONS: Detection of 100% of individuals with CVD high risk conditions compared with current levels of detection in England. Detected individuals are assumed to be managed either according to current levels of care or National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental and cumulative costs, savings, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), CVD cases, and net monetary benefit, from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: £68 billion could be saved, 4.9 million QALYs gained and 3.4 million cases of CVD prevented over 25 years if all individuals in England with the six CVD high risk conditions were diagnosed and subsequently managed at current levels. Additionally, if all detected individuals were managed according to NICE guidelines, total savings would be £61 billion, 8.1 million QALYs would be gained and 5.2 million CVD cases prevented. Most benefits come from detection of high cholesterol in the short term and diabetes in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial cost savings and health benefits would accrue if all individuals with conditions that increase CVD risk could be diagnosed, with detection of undiagnosed diabetes producing greatest benefits. Ensuring all conditions are managed according to NICE guidelines would further increase health benefits. Projected cost-savings could be invested in developing acceptable and cost-effective solutions for improving detection and management.

A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumour response endpoints, such as overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR), are increasingly used in cancer trials. However, the validity of response-based surrogates is unclear. This systematic review summarises meta-analyses assessing the association between response-based outcomes and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or time-to-progression (TTP). METHODS: Five databases were searched to March 2019. Meta-analyses reporting correlation or regression between response-based outcomes and OS, PFS or TTP were summarised. RESULTS: The systematic review included 63 studies across 20 cancer types, most commonly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer. The strength of association between ORR or CR and either PFS or OS varied widely between and within studies, with no clear pattern by cancer type. The association between ORR and OS appeared weaker and more variable than that between ORR and PFS, both for associations between absolute endpoints and associations between treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that response-based endpoints, such as ORR and CR, may not be reliable surrogates for PFS or OS. Where it is necessary to use tumour response to predict treatment effects on survival outcomes, it is important to fully reflect all statistical uncertainty in the surrogate relationship.

Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder that leads to decreased health-related quality of life and work productivity. A previous version of this review was not able to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS and recommended that further high quality RCTs were conducted to explore the clinical and cost effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS. Two types of homeopathic treatment were evaluated in this systematic review: 1. Clinical homeopathy where a specific remedy is prescribed for a specific condition; 2. Individualised homeopathic treatment, where a homeopathic remedy based on a person's individual symptoms is prescribed after a detailed consultation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic treatment for IBS. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register and trials registers from inception to 31 August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies that compared homeopathic treatment with placebo, other control treatments, or usual care, in adults with IBS were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS as measured by an IBS symptom severity score. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, and adverse events. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (307 participants) were included. Two studies compared clinical homeopathy (homeopathic remedy, asafoetida or asafoetida plus nux vomica) to placebo for IBS with constipation (IBS-C). One study compared individualised homeopathic treatment (consultation plus remedy) to usual care for the treatment of IBS in female patients. One study was a three armed RCT comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening or usual care. The risk of bias in three studies (the two studies assessing clinical homeopathy and the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care) was unclear on most criteria and high for selective reporting in one of the clinical homeopathy studies. The three armed study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care and supportive listening was at low risk of bias in four of the domains and high risk of bias in two (performance bias and detection bias).A meta-analysis of the studies assessing clinical homeopathy, (171 participants with IBS-C) was conducted. At short-term follow-up of two weeks, global improvement in symptoms was experienced by 73% (46/63) of asafoetida participants compared to 45% (30/66) of placebo participants (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.18; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). In the other clinical homeopathy study at two weeks, 68% (13/19) of those in the asafoetida plus nux vomica arm and 52% (12/23) of those in the placebo arm experienced a global improvement in symptoms (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.15; very low certainty evidence). In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care (N = 20), the mean global improvement score (feeling unwell) at 12 weeks was 1.44 + 4.55 (n = 9) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 1.41 + 1.97 (n=11) in the usual care arm (MD 0.03; 95% CI -3.16 to 3.22; very low certainty evidence).In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 237.3 + 110.22 (n = 60) in the usual care arm (MD -26.86, 95% CI -88.59 to 34.87; low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score (EQ-5D) at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.41 (SD 23.31) in usual care participants (MD 5.66, 95% CI -4.69 to 16.01; low certainty evidence).For In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 262 + 120.72 (n = 18) in the supportive listening arm (MD -51.56, 95% CI -129.94 to 26.82; very low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.09 (SD 24.38) in supportive listening participants (MD 5.98, 95% CI -8.13 to 20.09; very low certainty evidence).None of the included studies reported on abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy for the treatment of IBS can be drawn. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy for IBS compared to placebo or usual care.

Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna® (NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. DESIGN: A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1-3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1-3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1-3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups. LIMITATIONS: There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059561. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in England and Wales. Breast cancer, and its treatment, can have an impact on a person's health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests are used before chemotherapy. They test small samples of a patient's tumour (removed during surgery) to find out whether the genes in it mean that a person has a high or low risk of the disease returning (relapse). If the risk is low, the patient may be able to avoid having chemotherapy and, therefore, avoid its side effects. Some tests might also be able to identify which patients will respond to chemotherapy. This study looked at the evidence for five tumour profiling tests. A total of 153 studies were identified. This study considered the results and the quality of the studies to find out if the tests are helpful. Most studies had design flaws (e.g. some patients had already had chemotherapy) that meant that the studies were of low quality overall. The results suggest that all of the tests can give information on the risk of relapse; however, some tests may be less useful in patients whose disease has spread to the lymph nodes (lymph node-positive disease). There was limited and varying evidence about whether or not two of these tests can also predict which patients will respond to chemotherapy. This study also looked at whether or not these tests represent good value for money for the NHS through cost-effectiveness analyses. The analyses showed that some of the tests may represent a good use of NHS resources for some patient groups; however, there was still a lot of uncertainty about this.

Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR).

OBJECTIVES: There are many rapid review methods; however, there is little pragmatic guidance on which methods to select. This study aimed to reach consensus among international rapid review experts outlining areas to consider when selecting approaches for rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-round modified online Delphi survey was conducted between May and July 2018. Participants were asked to rank the importance of a predefined list of 19 items. A consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori. RESULTS: Thirty experts from ten countries participated in round 1 and 24 in round 2. During round 1, consensus was reached on all items. One additional item on quality assessment was suggested by respondents and comments suggested wording changes to improve clarity and understanding of the tool. Respondents in the second round indicated a high level of importance and all 20 items achieved consensus. These items addressed interaction with commissioners, scoping and searching the evidence-base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. CONCLUSION: International consensus was reached to produce the SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) decision tool for planning rapid reviews and will lead to improved shared understanding between review teams and review commissioners.

Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trials' comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis. CONCLUSION: The estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.

Mepolizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company (GlaxoSmithKline) that manufactures mepolizumab (Nucala®) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and omalizumab, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials (DREAM, MENSA and SIRIUS) comparing add-on mepolizumab with placebo plus SoC. The relevant population was defined in terms of degree of asthma severity (four or more exacerbations in the previous year and/or dependency on maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]) and degree of eosinophilia (a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µl in the previous year) based on post hoc subgroup analyses of the pivotal trials. Other subpopulations were considered throughout the appraisal, defined by different eosinophil measurements, number of exacerbations and dependency (or lack thereof) on mOCS. Statistically significant reductions in clinically significant exacerbations were observed in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with SoC meta-analysed across MENSA and DREAM in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (rate ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.62) as well as in the relevant population (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.62). In terms of quality of life, differences on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in MENSA for add-on subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg vs. placebo were 7 and 7.5 units in the modified ITT and relevant populations, respectively. A number of issues in the clinical evidence base warrant caution in its interpretation. The ERG noted that the definition of SoC used in the trials differed from that in clinical practice, where patients with severe uncontrolled asthma start treatment with a mOCS. The company's economic post-consultation analysis incorporating a confidential patient access scheme (PAS) estimated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC was £27,418 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the relevant population if patients stopped mepolizumab after 1 year unless (1) the number of exacerbations decreased at least 50% or (2) a reduction in corticosteroids dose was achieved whilst maintaining asthma control. The ERG applied an age adjustment to all utilities and corrected the post-continuation assessment utilities, which resulted in an ICER for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC of £29,163 per QALY gained. The ERG noted that this ICER was not robust for patients who continued treatment due to a corticosteroid dose reduction where exacerbations had decreased by less than 50%, because corticosteroid dose reduction was not allowed in the main trial in which the evidence was gathered (MENSA). The NICE appraisal committee (AC) concluded that add-on mepolizumab could be recommended as an option for treating severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adults for the relevant population when the stopping rule suggested by the company was applied. The AC also concluded that the comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab was not clinically relevant or methodologically robust.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016. REVIEW METHODS: Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness. LIMITATIONS: The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.