Low energy contact X-ray brachytherapy for treatment of rectal cancer: a health technology appraisal by Health Technology Wales.

AIM: Health Technology Wales sought to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) for early-stage rectal cancer. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus. A cost-utility model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CXB in National Health Service Wales, using results of the Organ Preservation in Early Rectal Adenocarcinoma (OPERA) trial. Patient perspectives were obtained through the Papillon Patient Support group and All-Wales Cancer Network. RESULTS: The OPERA randomized controlled trial showed that CXB improved complete response and organ preservation rates compared with external-beam boost for people with T2-3b, N0-1, M0 rectal cancer who are fit for surgery. Managing more of this population non-operatively after CXB was estimated to provide 0.2 quality-adjusted life years at an additional cost of £887 per person. CXB was cost effective compared with external-beam boost at a cost of £4463 per quality-adjusted life year gained. This conclusion did not change in scenario analysis and CXB was cost effective in 91% of probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Patients valued receiving clear information on all available options to support their individual treatment choices. The detrimental impact of a stoma on quality of life led some patients to reject the idea that surgery was their only option. CONCLUSION: This evidence review and cost-utility analysis indicates that CXB is likely to be clinically and cost effective, as part of a watch and wait strategy for adults fit for surgery. Wider access to CXB is supported by patient testimonies.

Effectiveness of tests to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, to inform COVID-19 diagnosis: a rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We undertook a rapid systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence that could be used to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the clinical effectiveness of tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to inform COVID-19 diagnosis? (2) What is the clinical effectiveness of tests that detect the presence of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to inform COVID-19 diagnosis? DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic test accuracy. We systematically searched for all published evidence on the effectiveness of tests for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, or antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, up to 4 May 2020, and assessed relevant studies for risks of bias using the QUADAS-2 framework. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value) were the main outcomes of interest. We also included studies that reported influence of testing on subsequent patient management, and that reported virus/antibody detection rates where these facilitated comparisons of testing in different settings, different populations or using different sampling methods. RESULTS: 38 studies on SARS-CoV-2 virus testing and 25 studies on SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing were identified. We identified high or unclear risks of bias in the majority of studies, most commonly as a result of unclear methods of patient selection and test conduct, or because of the use of a reference standard that may not definitively diagnose COVID-19. The majority were in hospital settings, in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection. Pooled analysis of 16 studies (3818 patients) estimated a sensitivity of 87.8% (95% CI 81.5% to 92.2%) for an initial reverse-transcriptase PCR test. For antibody tests, 10 studies reported diagnostic accuracy outcomes: sensitivity ranged from 18.4% to 96.1% and specificity 88.9% to 100%. However, the lack of a true reference standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis makes it challenging to assess the true diagnostic accuracy of these tests. Eighteen studies reporting different sampling methods suggest that for virus tests, the type of sample obtained/type of tissue sampled could influence test accuracy. Finally, we searched for, but did not identify, any evidence on how any test influences subsequent patient management. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is rapidly emerging on the effectiveness of tests for COVID-19 diagnosis and management, but important uncertainties about their effectiveness and most appropriate application remain. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy should be interpreted bearing in mind the absence of a definitive reference standard to diagnose or rule out COVID-19 infection. More evidence is needed about the effectiveness of testing outside of hospital settings and in mild or asymptomatic cases. Implementation of public health strategies centred on COVID-19 testing provides opportunities to explore these important areas of research.

Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the health and economic impact of extending screening intervals in people with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) without diabetes-related retinopathy (DR). SETTING: Diabetic Eye Screening Wales (DESW). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study with cost-utility analysis (CUA) and Decremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (DCER) study. INTERVENTION: Biennial screening versus usual care (annual screening). INPUTS: Anonymised data from DESW were linked to primary care data for people with two prior screening events with no DR. Transition probabilities for progression to DR were estimated based on a subset of 26,812 and 1232 people with T2DM and T1DM, respectively. DCER above £20,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. RESULTS: The base case analysis DCER results of £71,243 and £23,446 per QALY for T2DM and T1DM respectively at a 3.5% discount rate and £56,822 and £14,221 respectively when discounted at 1.5%. Diabetes management represented by the mean HbA1c was 7.5% for those with T2DM and 8.7% for T1DM. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Extending screening to biennial based on HbA1c, being the strongest predictor of progression of DR, at three levels of HbA1c 6.5%, 8.0% and 9.5% lost one QALY saving the NHS £106,075; £58,653 and £31,626 respectively for T2DM and £94,696, £37,646 and £11,089 respectively for T1DM. In addition, extending screening to biennial based on the duration of diabetes > 6 years for T2DM per QALY lost, saving the NHS £54,106 and for 6-12 and > 12 years for T1DM saving £83,856, £23,446 and £13,340 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Base case and sensitivity analyses indicate biennial screening to be cost-effective for T2DM irrespective of HbA1c and duration of diabetes. However, the uncertainty around the DCER indicates that annual screening should be maintained for those with T1DM especially when the HbA1c exceeds 80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and duration of diabetes is greater than 12 years.

The cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment or watch and wait with deferred chemotherapy for advanced asymptomatic follicular lymphoma.

Recent evidence has shown that immediate treatment with rituximab induction, with and without maintenance, substantially reduces the need for further treatment in patients with advanced asymptomatic follicular lymphoma. This analysis estimates the cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment approaches in comparison to a watch and wait approach from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A Markov decision model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies in patients with asymptomatic follicular lymphoma. The model was populated using effectiveness data from a systematic literature review with the key clinical data sourced from a randomised trial, in which the treatment strategies were compared. Costs were estimated using UK national sources. In comparison to watchful waiting, both rituximab strategies were found to be more effective and cost saving. In comparison to rituximab induction, the addition of rituximab maintenance marginally increased effectiveness but substantially increased costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £69 406 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, rituximab induction was found to have a 68% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY. In conclusion, active treatment with rituximab induction is a cost-effective strategy to adopt in patients with asymptomatic follicular lymphoma.

A cost-utility study of the use of pregabalin added to usual care in refractory neuropathic pain patients in a Swedish setting.

OBJECTIVES: Patients refractory to older therapies for neuropathic pain (NeP) have few remaining therapeutic options. This study evaluates the cost-utility of pregabalin in the treatment of patients with refractory neuropathic pain in Sweden, from a healthcare and a societal perspective. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The use of non-randomized (observational) data to determine the effectiveness of treatments for NeP. The use of non-Swedish data for some input parameters in the model. METHODS: A previously constructed discrete event simulation model was adapted to compare pregabalin combined with usual care to usual care alone in a Swedish setting. Pain profiles were generated using clinical data from five non-randomized pregabalin studies in refractory NeP patients. Utility data were generated from a UK survey of patients with NeP. Cost data were generated from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV's) product price database, a national NeP register, and a regional registry study. Indirect costs were estimated from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty in the model's output. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pregabalin plus usual care treatment compared to usual care was 51,616 SEK/€5364 and 123,993 SEK/€12,886 with and without indirect costs, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the clinical input data as the main driver of the model; even considerable changes to all other input parameters had only a modest effect on the ICER. The ICER remained well below a conservative threshold of 347,495 SEK/€36,113/£30,000 in all scenarios modelled. CONCLUSIONS: This study found pregabalin combined with usual care to be cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with refractory NeP from a Swedish Health Care perspective. Moreover, sensitivity analysis showed pregabalin's cost-effectiveness to be robust in all scenarios modelled.

A cost-utility study of the use of pregabalin in treatment-refractory neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES: A small but significant proportion of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (NeP) are refractory to the typical treatments applied in clinical practice, including amitriptyline and gabapentin. Thus, they continue to suffer the debilitating effects of NeP. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in comparison to usual care, in patients with refractory NeP, from a third party payer's perspective (NHS). METHODS: A stochastic simulation model was constructed, using clinical data from four non-randomized studies, to generate pain pathways of patients receiving usual care and pregabalin. Treatment effect (pain reduction) was converted to quality-of-life (QoL) data, using a regression analysis based on new utility data, collected from a survey of refractory NeP patients presenting to pain clinics in Cardiff, Wales. All relevant direct costs were estimated using resource use from the survey data (where available) and unit costs from the British National Formulary (BNF). The analysis was run over a 5-year time horizon, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The use of non-randomized (observational) data to characterize the effectiveness of treatments for NeP. Exclusion of productivity costs and consequences from the analysis. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10,803 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was attained. This result was found to be reasonably insensitive to variations in the key input parameters, with ICERs ranging from £8505 to £22,845 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis shows that pregabalin is a cost-effective alternative to usual care in patients with refractory NeP, with an ICER well below the threshold typically adopted by UK health technology assessment groups, such as NICE.