Real-world comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in patients with progressive neuroendocrine tumors in England: a matched cohort analysis using data from the hospital episode statistics dataset.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for patients with progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and matched patients treated with somatostatin analogs (SSAs), chemotherapy, or targeted therapies. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) dataset 2016-2018 was used to compare HCRU and costs between the two cohorts. The [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE cohort included patients assigned with a diagnosis code relevant to GEP-NET, a procedure code for imaging or SSAs, and a subsequent code for radionuclide therapy. The non-[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE cohort included patients assigned with a diagnosis code relevant to GEP-NET who had an increased frequency of SSAs or switched from SSAs to chemotherapy or targeted therapies. Cohorts were matched on propensity scores with sex, age at disease progression, and Charlson Comorbidity Index as parameters. Healthcare Resource Group codes were used for costing. RESULTS: A total of 199 matched patients were included. The [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE cohort had lower overall costs (£1,882,028 vs. £3,016,321; p < .0001), non-elective inpatient spells (289 vs. 611 days) and costs (£849,569 vs. £1,707,109; p < .0001 for both), Accident & Emergency costs (£41,978 vs. £62,480; p = .0013), and average length of stay for overall inpatient spells (14.2 vs. 23.3 days; p = .1092) compared with the non-[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses indicate significantly lower overall costs and HCRU for progressive GEP-NET patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE. Current research reveals that future real-world analyses would further benefit from using additional databases linked to the HES dataset such as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and/or National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are uncommon cancers involving the body's neuroendocrine cells. One type of NEN that is less aggressive with more favorable characteristics and prognosis is known as neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Somatostatin receptors (SSTR) are expressed by most NETs and are important treatment targets. Two-thirds of NETs originate in the body's gastroenteropancreatic system (GEP-NETs). GEP-NET is typically treated in the first instance with somatostatin analogs (SSAs), while other treatments such as chemotherapy, biologic targeted therapy, or Radio Ligand Therapy (RLT), can be offered to patients who have progressed. [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is a form of RLT that has recently been approved for use in England, Wales, and Scotland.The purpose of this study is to analyze the utilization of healthcare resources and the costs associated with the management of GEP-NETs patients who have progressed on SSAs. This study is based on hospital data from England as available in the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset 2016­2018.The utilization and costs of healthcare resources were compared between two groups of patients. Following progression, one group received [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, while the other group received other therapies (chemotherapy, biologic targeted therapy, or SSA with escalated or more frequent dosing). Statistical techniques were applied to enhance the comparability of analyzed groups of patients.The results revealed that the [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE group had lower inpatient admissions, outpatient appointments, and Accident & Emergency attendances compared with the non-[¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE group. Furthermore, the overall costs in the [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE group were lower by 37.6%. This study indicated that patients and hospitals in England and other parts of the United Kingdom may benefit from the use of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE. Further research is foreseen involving additional and linked databases, including further clinical outcomes as well.

Unilateral and bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials over 2 decades

Background: Approximately 35% of people with depression do not respond to 2 courses of antidepressant medications of adequate dosage, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is still a major clinical concern with a great impact on patients, their families, society and the health system. The present meta-analysis evaluates antidepressant efficacy of unilateral and bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with unipolar TRD. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials that compared rTMS with sham treatment and were published by Apr. 3, 2017. The primary outcome was improvement in depression scores measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. The secondary outcomes were remission and response rates. Two independent review authors screened the studies and extracted the data. Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the depression scores showed a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 3.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85­4.88) between unilateral rTMS and sham treatment. Stratified data showed that the effect was relatively higher when rTMS was used as an add-on to antidepressant medications (WMD 3.64, 95% CI 1.52­5.76) than when it was used as a stand-alone treatment (WMD 2.47, 95% CI 0.90­4.05). The WMD between bilateral rTMS and sham was 2.67 (95% CI 0.83­4.51), and all studies that contributed to this outcome used rTMS while participants were taking antidepressant medications. The pooled remission and response rates for unilateral rTMS versus sham treatment were 16.0% and 25.1% for rTMS and 5.7% and 11.0% for sham treatment, respectively. The pooled remission and response rates for bilateral rTMS versus sham treatment were 16.6% and 25.4% for rTMS and 2.0% and 6.8% for sham treatment, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that rTMS has moderate antidepressant effects and appears to be promising in the short-term treatment of patients with unipolar TRD.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps: An Economic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in Ontario. Most cases of colorectal cancer are preventable through early diagnosis and the removal of precancerous polyps. Colon capsule endoscopy is a non-invasive test for detecting colorectal polyps. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the impact on the Ontario health budget of implementing colon capsule endoscopy for detecting advanced colorectal polyps among adult patients who have been referred for computed tomographic (CT) colonography. METHODS: We performed an original cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the additional cost of CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy resulting from misdiagnoses. We generated diagnostic accuracy data from a clinical evidence-based analysis (reported separately), and we developed a deterministic Markov model to estimate the additional long-term costs and life-years lost due to false-negative results. We then also performed a budget impact analysis using data from Ontario administrative sources. One-year costs were estimated for CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy (replacing all CT colonography procedures, and replacing only those CT colonography procedures in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy within the previous year). We conducted this analysis from the payer perspective. RESULTS: Using the point estimates of diagnostic accuracy from the head-to-head study between colon capsule endoscopy and CT colonography, we found the additional cost of false-positive results for colon capsule endoscopy to be $0.41 per patient, while additional false-negatives for the CT colonography arm generated an added cost of $116 per patient, with 0.0096 life-years lost per patient due to cancer. This results in an additional cost of $26,750 per life-year gained for colon capsule endoscopy compared with CT colonography. The total 1-year cost to replace all CT colonography procedures with colon capsule endoscopy in Ontario is about $2.72 million; replacing only those CT colonography procedures in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy in the previous year would cost about $740,600 in the first year. LIMITATIONS: The difference in accuracy between colon capsule endoscopy and CT colonography was not statistically significant for the detection of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm in diameter), according to the head-to-head clinical study from which the diagnostic accuracy was taken. This leads to uncertainty in the economic analysis, with results highly sensitive to changes in diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of colon capsule endoscopy for use in patients referred for CT colonography is $26,750 per life-year, assuming an increased sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy. Replacement of CT colonography with colon capsule endoscopy is associated with moderate costs to the health care system.