A systematic review of studies that estimated the burden of chronic non-communicable rare diseases using disability-adjusted life years.

BACKGROUND: Initiatives aiming to assess the impact of rare diseases on population health might be hampered due to the complexity of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) estimation. This study aimed to give insight into the epidemiological data sources and methodological approaches used in studies that estimated DALYs for chronic non-communicable rare diseases (CNCRD), and compare its results. METHODS: A literature strategy was developed for peer-review search in Embase and Medline, and also performed on grey literature databases and population health and/or rare disease-focused websites. We included studies that determined the burden of CNCRD listed on the Orphanet's and/or the Genetic and Rare Diseases information center (GARD) websites. We excluded communicable and occupational diseases, rare cancers, and cost-effectiveness/benefit studies. Two researchers independently screened the identified records and extracted data from the final included studies. We used the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) statement to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. The data synthesis depicted the studies' characteristics, their distribution by geographic coverage and the group of disease(s) they focused on, the methods and data input sources used and estimated DALY per case. RESULTS: In total, 533 titles were screened, and 18 studies were included. These studies covered 19 different CNCRDs, of which most fell in the disease category "Diseases of the nervous system". Diverse methodological approaches and data input sources were observed among burden of CNCRD studies. A wide range of DALY per case was observed across the different studies and diseases included. CONCLUSIONS: A low number of burden of CNCRD studies was observed and most estimates resulted from multi-country studies, underlining the importance of international cooperation to further CNCRD research. This study revealed a lack of epidemiological data and harmonization of methods which hampers comparisons across burden of CNCRD studies.

Cost-effectiveness of ace inhibitors versus ARBs in heart failure management.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a chronic condition that imposes a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Effective management is crucial for improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used to manage heart failure by reducing cardiac strain and preventing disease progression. Despite their common use, ACE inhibitors and ARBs differ in mechanisms, cost, and potential side effects. ACE inhibitors have long been the standard treatment, while ARBs are often prescribed to patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors, particularly due to side effects like cough. Given these differences, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is essential. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from a healthcare system perspective, considering both direct medical costs and health outcomes. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate heart failure progression in a hypothetical cohort. Data inputs included clinical trial outcomes, real-world effectiveness data, direct medical costs (medications, hospitalizations, monitoring), and utility values for quality of life. The primary outcome measures were the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of results, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on age and disease severity. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that ACE inhibitors were associated with lower overall costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life years than ARBs. Sensitivity analyses revealed that variations in key parameters, such as transition probabilities, mortality rates, and healthcare expenses, had limited impact on the overall cost-effectiveness conclusions. Subgroup analyses indicated that ACE inhibitors and ARBs exhibited similar cost-effectiveness profiles for patients aged <65 and ≥65 years. However, among patients with severe heart failure, ARBs demonstrated a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with ACE inhibitors, suggesting reduced cost-effectiveness in this subgroup. CONCLUSION: ACE inhibitors are likely a more cost-effective option for managing heart failure than ARBs, particularly from a healthcare system perspective. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring treatment decisions to individual patient factors, preferences, and clinical conditions, providing valuable insights for healthcare policy and practice, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness across patient subgroups.

How are maternal and fetal outcomes incorporated when measuring benefits of interventions in pregnancy? Findings from a systematic review of cost-utility analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Medical interventions used in pregnancy can affect the length and quality of life of both the pregnant person and fetus. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and describe the theoretical frameworks that underpin outcome measurement in cost-utility analyses of pregnancy interventions. METHODS: Searches were conducted in the Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) database (up to 2017), as well as Medline, Embase and EconLit (2017-2019). We included all cost-utility analyses of any intervention given during pregnancy, published in English. We conducted a narrative synthesis of: study design; outcome construction (life expectancy, quality adjustment, discount rate); and whether the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was constructed using maternal or fetal outcomes. Where both outcomes were included, methods for combining them were extracted. RESULTS: We identified 127 cost-utility analyses in pregnancy, of which 89 reported QALYs and 38 DALYs. Outcomes were considered solely for the fetus in 59 studies (47%), solely for the pregnant person in 13 studies (10%), and for both in 49 studies (39%). The choice to include or exclude one or both sets of outcomes was not consistent within particular clinical areas. Where outcomes for both mother and baby were included, methods for combining these outcomes varied. Twenty-nine studies summed QALYs/DALYs for maternal and fetal outcomes, with no adjustment. The remaining 20 took a variety of approaches designed to weigh maternal and fetal outcomes differently. These include (1) treating fetal outcomes as a component of maternal quality of life, rather than (or in addition to) an independent individual health outcome; (2) treating the maternal-fetal dyad as a single entity and applying a single utility value to each combination of outcomes; and (3) assigning a shorter time horizon to fetal outcomes to reduce the weight of lifetime fetal outcomes. Each approach made different assumptions about the relative value of maternal and fetal health outcomes, demonstrating a lack of consistency and the need for guidance. CONCLUSION: Methods for capturing QALY/DALY outcomes in cost-utility analysis in pregnancy vary widely. This lack of consistency indicates a need for new methods to support the valuation of maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Temporary treatment cessation compared with continuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for adults with renal cancer: the STAR non-inferiority RCT.

Background: There is interest in using treatment breaks in oncology, to reduce toxicity without compromising efficacy. Trial design: A Phase II/III multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial assessing treatment breaks in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, starting tyrosine kinase inhibitor as first-line treatment at United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. Interventions: At trial entry, patients were randomised (1 : 1) to a drug-free interval strategy or a conventional continuation strategy. After 24 weeks of treatment with sunitinib/pazopanib, drug-free interval strategy patients took up a treatment break until disease progression with additional breaks dependent on disease response and patient choice. Conventional continuation strategy patients continued on treatment. Both trial strategies continued until treatment intolerance, disease progression on treatment, withdrawal or death. Objective: To determine if a drug-free interval strategy is non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of the co-primary outcomes of overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years. Co-primary outcomes: For non-inferiority to be concluded, a margin of ≤ 7.5% in overall survival and ≤ 10% in quality-adjusted life-years was required in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This equated to the 95% confidence interval of the estimates being above 0.812 and -0.156, respectively. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the utility index of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Results: Nine hundred and twenty patients were randomised (461 conventional continuation strategy vs. 459 drug-free interval strategy) from 13 January 2012 to 12 September 2017. Trial treatment and follow-up stopped on 31 December 2020. Four hundred and eighty-eight (53.0%) patients [240 (52.1%) vs. 248 (54.0%)] continued on trial post week 24. The median treatment-break length was 87 days. Nine hundred and nineteen patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (461 vs. 458) and 871 patients in the per-protocol analysis (453 vs. 418). For overall survival, non-inferiority was concluded in the intention-to-treat analysis but not in the per-protocol analysis [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) intention to treat 0.97 (0.83 to 1.12); per-protocol 0.94 (0.80 to 1.09) non-inferiority margin: 95% confidence interval ≥ 0.812, intention to treat: 0.83 > 0.812 non-inferior, per-protocol: 0.80 < 0.812 not non-inferior]. Therefore, a drug-free interval strategy was not concluded to be non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of overall survival. For quality-adjusted life-years, non-inferiority was concluded in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses [marginal effect (95% confidence interval) intention to treat -0.05 (-0.15 to 0.05); per-protocol 0.04 (-0.14 to 0.21) non-inferiority margin: 95% confidence interval ≥ -0.156]. Therefore, a drug-free interval strategy was concluded to be non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Limitations: The main limitation of the study is the fewer than expected overall survival events, resulting in lower power for the non-inferiority comparison. Future work: Future studies should investigate treatment breaks with more contemporary treatments for renal cell carcinoma. Conclusions: Non-inferiority was shown for the quality-adjusted life-year end point but not for overall survival as pre-defined. Nevertheless, despite not meeting the primary end point of non-inferiority as per protocol, the study suggested that a treatment-break strategy may not meaningfully reduce life expectancy, does not reduce quality of life and has economic benefits. Although the treating clinicians' perspectives were not formally collected, the fact that clinicians recruited a large number of patients over a long period suggests support for the study and provides clear evidence that a treatment-break strategy for patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy is feasible. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN06473203. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR award ref: 09/91/21) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 45. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Treatment breaks in cancer are of significant interest to patients and health professionals. Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Sunitinib and pazopanib are both targeted treatments. They were commonly used to treat advanced kidney cancer but often cause side effects, sometimes requiring use of a reduced dose or even stopping treatment. The STAR trial was designed to see whether planned treatment breaks made patients with advanced kidney cancer being treated with sunitinib and pazopanib feel better, without substantially affecting how well the treatment worked. After 24 weeks of treatment, patients took sunitinib and pazopanib either as they normally would or in the alternative way with planned treatment breaks. Treating patients in this way was continued until drug-related side effects stopped treatment, patients' disease worsened while taking treatment or the patient died. The trial compared how well the different treatment strategies worked in terms of how long patients lived and their quality of life over that time. This trial is the largest United Kingdom trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients took part from 60 United Kingdom centres between 2012 and 2017. It was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and run by the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit. In total, 920 patients took part. Four hundred and sixty-one patients were allocated to continue treatment and 459 were allocated to start at least one treatment break. Treatment breaks lasted on average 87 days. The length of time patients lived in both arms of the trial appeared similar, but this cannot be concluded due to insufficient information. Being allocated to have treatment breaks rather than continuing treatment did not negatively impact a patient's quality of life. Additionally, allocating patients to have treatment breaks was shown to have significant cost savings compared to just continuing treatment. Importantly planned treatment breaks were shown to be feasible.

Economic evaluation on meningococcal vaccination strategies among children under nine years of age in Zhejiang province, China.

Meningococcal vaccination in Chinese national immunization program (NIP) includes polysaccharide vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A (MPV-A) and polysaccharide vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A and C(MPV-AC). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of an alternative strategy using polysaccharide conjugate vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A,C,W,Y(MCV-ACWY) and polysaccharide vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A,C,W,Y(MPV-ACWY). From a societal perspective, we constructed a decision tree-Markov model to simulate the economic and health consequences of meningococcal disease in a 2023 birth cohort with the current meningococcal vaccination strategy and the alternative. Parameters of epidemiology, vaccine efficacy, cost, and utility were extracted from database and previous literatures. The sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the robustness of the model. Compared to the current practice, the alternative strategy could avoid 513 meningococcal disease cases, 53 sequelae and 47 deaths. The ICER was estimated at $16899.81 /QALY, under the threshold of one time of the GDP per capita of Zhejiang province in 2023. The incidence of meningococcemia, the incidence of meningococcal meningitis, the case fatality of meningococcemia, the vaccine efficacy of MCV-ACWY and the price of MCV-ACWY would influence the cost-effectiveness of the meningococcal vaccination strategies. At the threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 14.76% for the current strategy and 55.98% for the alternative strategy, respectively. The current meningococcal vaccination strategy had effectively prevented meningococcal disease at a low cost, but with limited serogroup coverage. Strategy using MCV-ACWY and MPV-ACWY could increase health benefits at a substantial cost at a cost-effective manner.

Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination strategies for older Canadian adults: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines could reduce disease burden and costs in older Canadian adults, but vaccination program cost-effectiveness is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different age cut-offs for RSV adult vaccination programs, with or without a focus on people with higher disease risk due to chronic medical conditions. METHODS: We developed a static individual-based model of medically attended RSV disease to compare alternative age-, medical risk-, and age-plus medical risk-based vaccination policies. The model followed a multiage population of 100 000 people aged 50 years and older. Vaccine characteristics were based on RSV vaccines authorized in Canada as of May 2024, with vaccine protection assumed to last 2 years (or 3 years in scenario analyses). We calculated sequential incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in 2023 Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from the health-system and societal perspectives, discounted at 1.5%. RESULTS: Although all vaccination strategies averted medically attended RSV disease, universal age-based strategies were not an efficient use of resources compared with medical risk-based strategies. Vaccinating adults aged 70 years and older with 1 or more chronic medical condition was the optimal strategy for a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY. Results were sensitive to assumptions about vaccine price, but medical risk-based approaches remained optimal compared with age-based strategies, even when vaccine prices were low. Findings were robust to a range of alternative assumptions. INTERPRETATION: Vaccination programs for RSV in some groups of older Canadians with underlying medical conditions are likely cost-effective. These findings can inform the design of vaccination programs.

Examining the evolving landscape of liver cancer burden in the United States from 1990 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Liver cancer (LC) is frequently preceded by cirrhosis and poses a significant public health challenge in the United States (US). Recent decades have seen notable shifts in the epidemiological patterns of LC, yet national data guiding the optimal allocation of resources and preventive efforts remain limited. This study aims to investigate the current trends, risk factors, and outcomes of LC in the US. METHODS: This study utilized the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) dataset to collect data on the annual incident cases, deaths, Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR), age-standardized death rates, and age-standardized DALY rates of primary LC and its etiologies and risk factors, between 1990 and 2019. Percentage changes in incident cases, DALYs, and deaths and the estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) in ASIR and deaths rates of LC were calculated to conduct temporal analysis. Linear regression was applied for the calculation of EAPCs. Correlations of EAPC with socio-demographic index (SDI) were separately evaluated by Pearson correlation analyses. RESULTS: We observed a marked increase in the ASIR of LC, increasing from 2.22 (95% CI: 2.15-2.27) per 100,000 people in 1990 to 5.23 (95% CI: 4.28-6.29) per 100,000 people in 2019, a percentage change of 135.4%. LC due to hepatitis C followed by alcohol use were the primary factors driving this increase. The ASIR and age-standardized death rates of LC showed a significant average annual increase of 3.0% (95% CI: 2.7-3.2) and 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5-2.8), respectively. There was a significant negative correlation between the SDI and the EAPC in ASIR (ρ = -0.40, p = 0.004) and age-standardized death rates (ρ = -0.46, p < 0.001). In 2019, drug and alcohol use, followed by elevated body mass index (BMI) were the primary risk factors for age-standardized DALY rates attributable to LC. CONCLUSION: The increased burden of LC in the US highlights the need for interventions. This is particularly important given that LC is mostly influenced by modifiable risk factors, such as drug and alcohol use, and elevated BMI. Our findings highlight the urgent need for public health interventions targeting socio-economic, lifestyle, and modifiable risk factors to mitigate the escalating burden of LC.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression. Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient's risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for people with peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons. Limitations: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges. Conclusions: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation). Future work: More randomised controlled trials are necessary. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cancers of the bowel, ovary or stomach can spread to the lining of the abdomen ('peritoneal metastases'). Chemotherapy (the use of drugs that aim to kill cancer cells) given by injection or tablets ('systemic chemotherapy') is one of the main treatment options. There is uncertainty about whether adding cytoreductive surgery (cytoreductive surgery; an operation to remove the cancer) and 'hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy' (warm chemotherapy delivered into the lining of the abdomen during cytoreductive surgery) are beneficial. We reviewed all the information from medical literature published until 14 April 2022, to answer the above uncertainty. We found the following from eight trials, including about 1000 participants. In people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably does not provide any benefits and increases harm compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy, while cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy appears to increase survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the best treatment for people with peritoneal metastases from stomach cancer. In women with peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer who require systemic chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery to shrink the cancer to allow surgery ('advanced ovarian cancer'), hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably increases survival compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy. In people who can withstand a major operation and in whom cancer can be removed, cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, while hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to women with peritoneal metastases from 'advanced ovarian cancer'. Uncertainty in treatment continues for gastric cancer. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Behaviour change intervention (education and text) to prevent dental caries in secondary school pupils: BRIGHT RCT, process and economic evaluation.

Background: The presence of dental caries impacts on children's daily lives, particularly among those living in deprived areas. There are successful interventions across the United Kingdom for young children based on toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste. However, evidence is lacking for oral health improvement programmes in secondary-school pupils to reduce dental caries and its sequelae. Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention promoting toothbrushing for preventing dental caries in secondary-school pupils. Design: A multicentre, school-based, assessor-blinded, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot and embedded health economic and process evaluations. Setting: Secondary schools in Scotland, England and Wales with above-average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Randomisation occurred within schools (year-group level), using block randomisation stratified by school. Participants: Pupils aged 11-13 years at recruitment, who have their own mobile telephone. Interventions: Two-component intervention based on behaviour change theory: (1) 50-minute lesson delivered by teachers, and (2) twice-daily text messages to pupils' mobile phones about toothbrushing, compared with routine education. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion using DICDAS4-6MFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth) in any permanent tooth, measured at pupil level at 2.5 years. Secondary outcomes included: number of DICDAS4-6MFT; presence and number of DICDAS1-6MFT; plaque; bleeding; twice-daily toothbrushing; health-related quality of life (Child Health Utility 9D); and oral health-related quality of life (Caries Impacts and Experiences Questionnaire for Children). Results: Four thousand six hundred and eighty pupils (intervention, n = 2262; control, n = 2418) from 42 schools were randomised. The primary analysis on 2383 pupils (50.9%; intervention 1153, 51.0%; control 1230, 50.9%) with valid data at baseline and 2.5 years found 44.6% in the intervention group and 43.0% in control had obvious decay experience in at least one permanent tooth. There was no evidence of a difference (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.26, p = 0.72) and no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes except for twice-daily toothbrushing at 6 months (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.63, p = 0.03) and gingival bleeding score (borderline) at 2.5 years (geometric mean difference 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.00, p = 0.05). The intervention had higher incremental mean costs (£1.02, 95% confidence interval -1.29 to 3.23) and lower incremental mean quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.009 to 0.002). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 7% at 2.5 years. However, in two subgroups, pilot trial schools and schools with higher proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals, there was an 84% and 60% chance of cost effectiveness, respectively, although their incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years remained small and not statistically significant. The process evaluation revealed that the intervention was generally acceptable, although the implementation of text messages proved challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic hampered data collection. High rates of missing economic data mean findings should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Engagement with the intervention and evidence of 6-month change in toothbrushing behaviour was positive but did not translate into a reduction of caries. Future work should include work with secondary-school pupils to develop an understanding of the determinants of oral health behaviours, including toothbrushing and sugar consumption, particularly according to free school meal eligibility. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12139369. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/166/08) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 52. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Tooth decay has an impact on children and young people's daily lives, particularly those living in deprived areas. For young children, programmes to improve toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste help prevent tooth decay. The Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh trial (BRIGHT) investigated whether a secondary-school-based toothbrushing programme would work. We developed a new programme which included a lesson and twice-daily text messages sent to pupils' phones. In total, 4680 pupils, aged 11­13 years, from 42 secondary schools in the United Kingdom took part in the trial. At each school, one year group was randomly selected to receive the programme, while the other year group did not receive it. All pupils were followed up for 2.5 years to see whether there were any differences in levels of tooth decay, frequency of toothbrushing, plaque or quality of life. We also considered the programme's value for money and the views of pupils and school staff. We followed up 2383 pupils and found no difference in tooth decay, plaque or quality of life. We found those who had the programme were more likely to brush their teeth twice daily after 6 months than those who did not. The programme was not good value for money overall. However, the programme appeared to be of more benefit at preventing tooth decay in pupils eligible for free school meals compared to those not eligible. In the schools with more pupils eligible for free school meals, the chance of the programme representing good value for money increased. The programme was generally liked by the pupils and school staff. Some pupils found the text messages useful, although others said they were annoying. The programme helped pupils brush their teeth more frequently in the short term, but this did not lead to less tooth decay. Further research is needed to understand how to prevent tooth decay in secondary-school pupils.

Chair-based yoga programme for older adults with multimorbidity: RCT with embedded economic and process evaluations.

Background: Older adults with multimorbidity experience impaired health-related quality of life and treatment burden. Yoga has the potential to improve several aspects of health and well-being. The British Wheel of Yoga's Gentle Years Yoga© programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic conditions. A pilot trial demonstrated feasibility of using Gentle Years Yoga in this population, but there was limited evidence of its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Objective: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Gentle Years Yoga programme in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in older adults with multimorbidity. Design: Pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Setting: Participants were recruited from 15 general practices in England and Wales from July 2019 with final follow-up in October 2022. Participants: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and over with multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic health conditions from a predefined list. Interventions: All participants continued with any usual care provided by primary, secondary, community and social services. The intervention group was offered a 12-week programme of Gentle Years Yoga. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome and end point were health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility index score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, loneliness, incidence of falls, adverse events and healthcare resource use. Results: The mean age of the 454 randomised participants was 73.5 years; 60.6% were female, and participants had a median of three chronic conditions. The primary analysis included 422 participants (intervention, n = 227 of 240, 94.6%; usual care, n = 195 of 214, 91.1%). There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility index score over 12 months: the predicted mean score for the intervention group was 0.729 (95% confidence interval 0.712 to 0.747) and for usual care it was 0.710 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.691 to 0.729], with an adjusted mean difference of 0.020 favouring intervention (95% CI -0.006 to 0.045, p = 0.14). No statistically significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, except for the pain items of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention cost £80.85 more per participant (95% CI £76.73 to £84.97) than usual care, generated an additional 0.0178 quality-adjusted life-years per participant (95% CI 0.0175 to 0.0180) and had a 79% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The intervention was acceptable to participants, with seven courses delivered face to face and 12 online. Limitations: Self-reported outcome data raise the potential for bias in an unblinded trial. The COVID-19 pandemic affected recruitment, follow-up and the mode of intervention delivery. Conclusions: Although the Gentle Years Yoga programme was not associated with any statistically significant benefits in terms of health-related quality of life, mental health, loneliness or falls, the intervention was safe, acceptable to most participants and highly valued by some. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. Future work: Longer-term cost-effectiveness modelling and identifying subgroups of people who are most likely to benefit from this type of intervention. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13567538. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/94/36) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 53. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

It is common for older adults to have two or more long-term health conditions. These conditions affect quality of life differently, with some people feeling well and others needing healthcare support. The Gentle Years Yoga programme was developed to improve quality of life for older adults, including those with long-term health conditions. We wanted to see how well the programme worked and if it offered good value for money for the NHS. We tested whether offering a 12-week course of Gentle Years Yoga improved the quality of life and reduced anxiety, depression, loneliness and falls for people aged 65 years and over who had two or more long-term health conditions. We recruited 454 people through general practices across England and Wales, with 240 people selected at random to be invited to take part in the Gentle Years Yoga programme and the other 214 to continue with their usual care and not be offered Gentle Years Yoga. The average age of participants was 74 years, nearly two-thirds were female and the number of long-term health conditions participants had ranged from two to nine (average was three). They completed four questionnaires over a 12-month period. We also interviewed some of the participants and the yoga teachers to find out how the approach worked in practice. The yoga was delivered either face to face or online. We did not find any significant benefits in terms of quality of life, anxiety, depression, loneliness or falls. At interview, some yoga participants noted no or a modest impact on their health or lifestyle, while others described Gentle Years Yoga as transformative, having substantial impacts and improvements on their physical health and emotional well-being. Because running the yoga classes was relatively inexpensive and some insignificant benefits were seen, the Gentle Years Yoga programme may be good value for money.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy in advanced biliary tract cancer.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatments for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC).Methods: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation employed the fractional polynomial network meta-analysis and partitioned survival model. Costs and utilities were collected from the literature and databases. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainties.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line treatment strategies were $761,371.37 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $206,222.53/QALY in the US and $354,678.79 /QALY or $213,874.22/QALY in China, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were largely consistent with the base case.Conclusion: From the US and Chinese payer perspectives, adding durvalumab or pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost effective in the first-line setting for advanced BTC.

[Box: see text].

The UK resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients with life-threatening torso haemorrhage: the (UK-REBOA) multicentre RCT.

Background: The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective: To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting: United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants: Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures: Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources: Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results: Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations: The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions: This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work: The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Trauma (physical injury) is a major cause of death and disability. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is uncontrolled bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a technique whereby a small balloon is inflated in the aorta (main blood vessel) which aims to limit blood loss until an operation can be done to stop the bleeding. In this study, which is the first randomised trial in the world of this technique, we investigated whether adding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to the standard care received in a major trauma centre reduced the risk of death in trauma patients who had life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding. The study took place in 16 major trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Ninety adult trauma patients with confirmed or suspected uncontrolled bleeding took part and were randomly divided into two groups: (1) those who received standard care and (2) those who received standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. We followed participants for 6 months using routinely collected data from the National Health Service and from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. We also contacted surviving patients at 6 months to ask about their quality of life. In the standard care group, 42% of participants died within 90 days of their injury compared to 54% of participants in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group. Risk of death was also higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group at all other time points (3, 6 and 24 hours, in hospital and at 6 months). Overall, the study showed that the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hospital increased the risk of death.

Disease burden comparison and associated risk factors of early- and late-onset neonatal sepsis in China and the USA, 1990-2019.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality rates of neonatal sepsis are high, with significant differences in risk factors and disease burden observed between developing and developed countries. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence to support recommendations on improving public health policies using a comparative systematic analysis of the disease burden. METHODS: Using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, the prevalence and incidence of early- and late-onset neonatal sepsis and the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to both countries in both China and the United States of America (USA) were assessed. Furthermore, the DALYs and summary exposure values for the primary risk factors (short gestation and low birthweight) were analysed. Joinpoint regression models were used to analyse temporal trends in epidemiological indicators of neonatal sepsis. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2019, the incidence and prevalence of neonatal sepsis demonstrated a significant upwards trend in China, whereas both were largely stable in the USA. A decreasing trend in the DALYs due to neonatal sepsis caused by short gestation and low birthweight in both sexes was observed in both countries, whereas a fluctuating increasing trend in years lived with disability was observed in China. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the Chinese public health policy should be to control risk factors, learning from the advanced health policy planning and perinatal management experiences of developed countries.

Main findings Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributed to short gestation and low birth-weight for neonatal sepsis have been decreasing in both China and the USA; years lived with disability (YLDs) and summary exposure values (SEVs) have been increasing in China.Added knowledge This study provides new knowledge about the disease burden of neonatal sepsis attributable to short gestation and low birthweight and suggests possible interventions.Global health impact for policy and action Public health policies in developing countries need to focus on moderating risk factors, learning from the advanced health policy planning and perinatal management experiences of developed countries, and improving neonatal follow-up and rehabilitation interventions.

Pharmaceutical intervention for hypertension in a rural district of the Republic of Zambia: a model-based economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: In Zambia, 19.1% of the adult population had elevated blood pressure. Hence, the Ministry of Health in Zambia designated the improvement of hypertension (HTN) care services as a priority policy. However, there are limited data on cost-effective interventions to address HTN and their budget impact in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of this paper is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of primary-level interventions for HTN (pharmaceutical treatments) compared with no treatment, and the budget impact, in the Chongwe District, rural Zambia. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of healthcare provider, employing a cohort Markov model with a lifetime horizon. The model was developed and populated with evidence from the literature, including novel locally collected cost data. The analysis was run for the overall population aged 40 years and above and for subpopulations stratified by three levels of risk and gender in Chongwe District by using cost data directly collected. A probabilistic analysis was performed to assess the probability of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The dominant treatment for the general population was a combination therapy of diuretics and calcium blockers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$1114 compared with no treatment. This was the most cost-effective first-line medication for HTN for all subgroup populations, except for the subgroups classified as low-risk defined by WHO. The estimated annual budget impact was US$1 015 605 in total if all HTN patients in Chongwe District received the most cost-effective treatment. Considering only material costs, the annual total budget was US$29 435. CONCLUSION: The most cost-effective first-line medication for HTN in rural Zambia was the combination therapy of diuretics and calcium blockers for the general population. From the perspective of budget impact, local government could need to secure approximately US$30 000 to facilitate the delivery of the most cost-effective HTN medications to the entire population over 40 years in need.

Trends in disease burden and risk factors of asthma from 1990 to 2019 in Belt and Road Initiative countries: evidence from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

This study outlines asthma burden trends across age, sex, regions and risk factors in 'Belt and Road' (B&R) countries from 1990 to 2019 using the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 data. Incidence, mortality, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and risk factors for asthma were measured. India, China and Indonesia bore the heaviest burden in 2019. Despite the significant decline in the average annual percent change for age-standardized mortality and years of life lost from 1990 to 2019, increases were observed in several East Asian, Central Asian, North African and Middle Eastern countries between 2010 and 2019. For both sexes, YLDs decreased in most B&R countries but increased in Montenegro, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Vietnam and Oman. YLDs in Georgia, the United Arab Emirates and Albania increased in males but decreased in females. YLDs increased for those aged <15 years in Central Asia and Europe, while China's 50-74-year age group showed the lowest YLD change. High body mass index (BMI) led to increased YLDs in East, Central and Southeast Asia; North Africa; and the Middle East. Conclusively, asthma burden varies significantly by country. Tailoring control efforts to specific regions, sex and high BMI could enhance asthma management.

Impact of perioperative diagnostic tools on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in parathyroid surgery: a decision model-based analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative and intraoperative diagnostic tools influence the surgical management of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), whereby their performance of classification varies considerably for the two common causes of PHPT: solitary adenomas and multiglandular disease. A consensus on the use of such diagnostic tools for optimal perioperative management of all PHPT patients has not been reached. DESIGN: A decision tree model was constructed to estimate and compare the clinical outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging modalities and intraoperative parathyroid hormone (ioPTH) monitoring criteria in a 21-year time horizon with a 3% discount rate. The robustness of the model was assessed by conducting a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic uncertainty analysis. SETTING: The US healthcare system. POPULATION: A hypothetical population consisting of 5000 patients with sporadic, symptomatic or asymptomatic PHPT. INTERVENTIONS: Preoperative and intraoperative diagnostic modalities for parathyroidectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), net monetary benefits (NMBs) and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, four-dimensional (4D) CT was the least expensive strategy with US$10 276 and 15.333 QALYs. Ultrasound and 99mTc-Sestamibi single-photon-emission CT/CT were both dominated strategies while 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography was cost-effective with an NMB of US$416 considering a willingness to pay a threshold of US$95 958. The application of ioPTH monitoring with the Vienna criterion decreased the rate of reoperations from 10.50 to 0.58 per 1000 patients compared to not using ioPTH monitoring. Due to an increased rate of bilateral neck explorations from 257.45 to 347.45 per 1000 patients, it was not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: 4D-CT is the most cost-effective modality for the preoperative localisation of solitary parathyroid adenomas and multiglandular disease. The use of ioPTH monitoring is not cost-effective, but to minimise clinical complications, the Miami criterion should be applied for suspected solitary adenomas and the Vienna criterion for multiglandular disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of app-delivered self-management support (selfBACK) in addition to usual care for people with low back pain in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of individually tailored self-management support, delivered via the artificial intelligence-based selfBACK app, as an add-on to usual care for people with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Secondary health-economic analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 9-month follow-up conducted from a Danish national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario). SETTING: Primary care and an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of Danish participants in the selfBACK RCT, including 297 adults with LBP randomised to the intervention (n=148) or the control group (n=149). INTERVENTIONS: App-delivered evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support as an add-on to usual care compared with usual care alone among people with LBP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of healthcare usage and productivity loss, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5L Dimension Questionnaire, meaningful changes in LBP-related disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), costs (healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The incremental costs were higher for the selfBACK intervention (mean difference €230 (95% CI -136 to 595)), where ICERs showed an increase in costs of €7336 per QALY gained in the intervention group, and €1302 and €1634 for an additional person with minimal important change on the PSEQ and RMDQ score, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold value of €23250, the selfBACK intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective. Analysis of productivity loss was very sensitive, which creates uncertainty about the results from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity. CONCLUSIONS: From a healthcare perspective, the selfBACK intervention is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment for people with LBP. However, including productivity loss introduces uncertainty to the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03798288.

The global health and economic value of COVID-19 vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered one of the largest global health and economic crises in recent history. COVID-19 vaccination (CV) has been the central tool for global health and macroeconomic recovery, yet estimates of CV's global health and macroeconomic value remain scarce. METHODS: We used regression analyses to measure the impact of CV on gross domestic product (GDP), infections and deaths. We combined regression estimates of vaccine-averted infections and deaths with estimates of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) losses, and direct and indirect costs, to estimate three broad value components: (i) QALY gains, (ii) direct and indirect costs averted and (iii) GDP impacts. The global value is the sum of components over 148 countries between January 2020 and December 2021 for CV generally and for Pfizer-BioNTech specifically. RESULTS: CV's global value was US$5.2 (95% CI US$4.1 to US$6.2) trillion, with Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccines contributing over US$1.9 (95% CI US$1.5 to US$2.3) trillion. Varying key parameters results in values 10%-20% higher or lower than the base-case value. The largest value component was GDP impacts, followed by QALY gains, then direct and indirect costs averted. CV provided US$740 of value per dose, while Pfizer-BioNTech specifically provided >US$1600 per dose. We estimated conservative benefit-cost ratios of 13.9 and 30.8 for CV and Pfizer-BioNTech, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We provide the first estimates of the broad value of CV incorporating GDP, QALY and direct and indirect cost impacts. Through December 2021, CV produced significant health and economic value, represented strong value for money and produced significant macroeconomic benefits that should be considered in vaccine evaluation.

Cost-Effectiveness of AI for Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening.

Importance: Previous research has shown good discrimination of short-term risk using an artificial intelligence (AI) risk prediction model (Mirai). However, no studies have been undertaken to evaluate whether this might translate into economic gains. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of incorporating risk-stratified screening using a breast cancer AI model into the United Kingdom (UK) National Breast Cancer Screening Program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study, conducted from January 1, 2023, to January 31, 2024, involved the development of a decision analytical model to estimate health-related quality of life, cancer survival rates, and costs over the lifetime of the female population eligible for screening. The analysis took a UK payer perspective, and the simulated cohort consisted of women aged 50 to 70 years at screening. Exposures: Mammography screening at 1 to 6 yearly screening intervals based on breast cancer risk and standard care (screening every 3 years). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental net monetary benefit based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and National Health Service (NHS) costs (given in pounds sterling; to convert to US dollars, multiply by 1.28). Results: Artificial intelligence-based risk-stratified programs were estimated to be cost-saving and increase QALYs compared with the current screening program. A screening schedule of every 6 years for lowest-risk individuals, biannually and triennially for those below and above average risk, respectively, and annually for those at highest risk was estimated to give yearly net monetary benefits within the NHS of approximately £60.4 (US $77.3) million and £85.3 (US $109.2) million, with QALY values set at £20 000 (US $25 600) and £30 000 (US $38 400), respectively. Even in scenarios where decision-makers hesitate to allocate additional NHS resources toward screening, implementing the proposed strategies at a QALY value of £1 (US $1.28) was estimated to generate a yearly monetary benefit of approximately £10.6 (US $13.6) million. Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical model study of integrating risk-stratified screening with a breast cancer AI model into the UK National Breast Cancer Screening Program, risk-stratified screening was likely to be cost-effective, yielding added health benefits at reduced costs. These results are particularly relevant for health care settings where resources are under pressure. New studies to prospectively evaluate AI-guided screening appear warranted.