The Extrapolation Performance of Survival Models for Data With a Cure Fraction: A Simulation Study.

OBJECTIVES: Curative treatments can result in complex hazard functions. The use of standard survival models may result in poor extrapolations. Several models for data which may have a cure fraction are available, but comparisons of their extrapolation performance are lacking. A simulation study was performed to assess the performance of models with and without a cure fraction when fit to data with a cure fraction. METHODS: Data were simulated from a Weibull cure model, with 9 scenarios corresponding to different lengths of follow-up and sample sizes. Cure and noncure versions of standard parametric, Royston-Parmar, and dynamic survival models were considered along with noncure fractional polynomial and generalized additive models. The mean-squared error and bias in estimates of the hazard function were estimated. RESULTS: With the shortest follow-up, none of the cure models provided good extrapolations. Performance improved with increasing follow-up, except for the misspecified standard parametric cure model (lognormal). The performance of the flexible cure models was similar to that of the correctly specified cure model. Accurate estimates of the cured fraction were not necessary for accurate hazard estimates. Models without a cure fraction provided markedly worse extrapolations. CONCLUSIONS: For curative treatments, failure to model the cured fraction can lead to very poor extrapolations. Cure models provide improved extrapolations, but with immature data there may be insufficient evidence to choose between cure and noncure models, emphasizing the importance of clinical knowledge for model choice. Dynamic cure fraction models were robust to model misspecification, but standard parametric cure models were not.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information. RESULTS: When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose. CONCLUSION: Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.

Comparing current and emerging practice models for the extrapolation of survival data: a simulation study and case-study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of future survival can be a key evidence source when deciding if a medical treatment should be funded. Current practice is to use standard parametric models for generating extrapolations. Several emerging, more flexible, survival models are available which can provide improved within-sample fit. This study aimed to assess if these emerging practice models also provided improved extrapolations. METHODS: Both a simulation study and a case-study were used to assess the goodness of fit of five classes of survival model. These were: current practice models, Royston Parmar models (RPMs), Fractional polynomials (FPs), Generalised additive models (GAMs), and Dynamic survival models (DSMs). The simulation study used a mixture-Weibull model as the data-generating mechanism with varying lengths of follow-up and sample sizes. The case-study was long-term follow-up of a prostate cancer trial. For both studies, models were fit to an early data-cut of the data, and extrapolations compared to the known long-term follow-up. RESULTS: The emerging practice models provided better within-sample fit than current practice models. For data-rich simulation scenarios (large sample sizes or long follow-up), the GAMs and DSMs provided improved extrapolations compared with current practice. Extrapolations from FPs were always very poor whilst those from RPMs were similar to current practice. With short follow-up all the models struggled to provide useful extrapolations. In the case-study all the models provided very similar estimates, but extrapolations were all poor as no model was able to capture a turning-point during the extrapolated period. CONCLUSIONS: Good within-sample fit does not guarantee good extrapolation performance. Both GAMs and DSMs may be considered as candidate extrapolation models in addition to current practice. Further research into when these flexible models are most useful, and the role of external evidence to improve extrapolations is required.

Cost effectiveness of nusinersen for patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy in US.

BACKGROUND: Patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare, genetic neuromuscular disease, do not achieve key motor function milestones (e.g., sitting) and have short life expectancy in the absence of treatment. Nusinersen is a disease-modifying therapy for patients with SMA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nusinersen compared to best supportive care (BSC) in patients diagnosed with infantile-onset SMA in the US. METHODS: A de novo economic model was developed with the following health states: "permanent ventilation", "not sitting", "sitting", "walking", and "death". Short-term data were sourced from the pivotal clinical trials and studies of nusinersen (ENDEAR and SHINE). Motor function milestones achieved at the end of follow-up in the clinical trials were assumed to be sustained until death. Mortality risks were based on survival modelling of relevant published Kaplan-Meier data. Costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per annum, and the analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results to key parameters. RESULTS: In our base-case analysis, nusinersen treatment achieves greater QALYs and more LYs (3.24 and 7.64, respectively) compared with BSC (0.46 QALYs and 2.40 LYs, respectively), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of approximately $1,112,000 and an incremental cost per LY gained of $590,000 for nusinersen compared to BSC. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios did not fall below $990,000 per QALY gained in scenario and sensitivity analyses. Results were most sensitive to the length of survival, background health care costs, and utility in the "not sitting" and "sitting" health states. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness of nusinersen from a US health care sector perspective exceeded traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival, costs, utilities, and whether the motor function milestones were sustained over lifetime. Given the relatively short-term effectiveness data available for the treatment, a registry to collect long-term data of infantile-onset SMA patients is recommended.

Attention Restoration Theory II: a systematic review to clarify attention processes affected by exposure to natural environments.

Attention Restoration Theory (ART) predicts exposure to natural environments may lead to improved cognitive performance through restoration of a limited cognitive resource, directed attention. A recent review by Ohly and colleagues (2016) uncovered substantial ambiguity surrounding details of directed attention and how cognitive restoration was tested. Therefore, an updated systematic review was conducted to identify relevant cognitive domains from which to describe elements of directed attention sensitive to the restoration effect. Forty-two articles that tested natural environments or stimuli against a suitable control, and included an objective measure of cognitive performance, had been published since July 2013. Articles were subjected to screening procedures and quality appraisal. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled effect sizes across 8 cognitive domains using data from 49 individual outcome measures. Results showed that working memory, cognitive flexibility, and to a less-reliable degree, attentional control, are improved after exposure to natural environments, with low to moderate effect sizes. Moderator analyses revealed that actual exposures to real environments may enhance the restoration effect within these three domains, relative to virtual exposures; however, this may also be due to differences in the typical lengths of exposure. The effect of a participants' restoration potential, based upon diagnosis or fatigue-induction, was less clear. A new framework is presented to qualify the involvement of directed attention-related processes, using examples of tasks from the three cognitive domains found to be sensitive to the restoration effect. The review clarifies the description of cognitive processes sensitive to natural environments, using current evidence, while exploring aspects of protocol that appear influential to the strength of the restoration effect.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of group art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of mental health problems are non-psychotic (e.g., depression, anxiety, and phobias). For some people, art therapy may be a more acceptable alternative form of psychological therapy than standard forms of treatment, such as talking therapies. This study was part of a health technology assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research, UK and aimed to systematically appraise the clinical and cost-effective evidence for art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness and a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven randomised controlled trials were included (533 patients). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. The control groups varied between studies but included: no treatment/wait-list, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 7 of the 11 studies. A de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control and group art therapy with group verbal therapy. Group art-therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty although generalisability to the target population was unclear; group verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited available evidence art therapy was associated with positive effects compared with control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles. The included trials were generally of poor quality and are therefore likely to be at high risk of bias. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective versus wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding in the target population. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed comparison of the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy with group verbal therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: HTA project no. 12/27/16; PROSPERO registration no. CRD42013003957.

Health economic modelling of treatment sequences for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

The objective of the work reported in this paper was to critically assess how sequential disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been modelled in the context of economic evaluation of the use of DMARDs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A secondary purpose was to identify the methodological challenges of modelling sequential therapies. Systematic searches of 10 databases were undertaken in February 2013. Studies were included if they were in the English language and a full comparative economic evaluation was reported. They were appraised by use of the Drummond checklist (Appendix to this paper). Data extracted included economic evaluation data, data relating to sequential treatment, and data on the modelling methods used. Fifty-seven studies were identified, with 25 (44 %) modelling a sequence of treatments. Forty-three (75 %) were cost-utility analyses. Eleven (19 %) were UK studies and 11 (19 %) were US. The remainder were mainly European (26 (46 %)). A distinction was made between studies of recent-onset RA (14 (25 %)) and those of established RA (42 (74 %)). One study (1 %) was unclear. Individual-level models were more likely to meet the Drummond criteria and evaluate sequences. No study identified an optimum sequence of multiple treatments given a set of treatment options. The level of reporting of the methods and evidence used to assess the effect of downstream treatments in the sequence was generally poor. When lifelong models and downstream treatment sequences were considered, evidence gaps were identified. The review discovered that methods have not been consistently applied, leading to varied estimates of cost-effectiveness. Treatment sequences have not been fully considered and modelled, potentially resulting in inaccurate estimates of cost-effectiveness.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation. Setting: Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings. Methods: Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee. Results: The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations: No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified. Conclusions: The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies. Future work: Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is an infectious disease that can cause death and long-term ill-health. Treatments exist that can be provided in hospital to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. Treatments also exist which can be provided in the community for people at high risk of needing to be admitted to hospital to reduce the number of admissions and to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. However, the value for money of these treatments has not been estimated. We took the clinical effectiveness of nine treatments from published literature sources and built a model that estimated the value for money of six treatments compared with care without these treatments. Three treatments were excluded due to confidential prices. The results of the model showed that many treatments in a hospital setting had estimates of cost-effectiveness that would normally be seen to be good value for money using the thresholds published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The same was true for some treatments in a community setting. However, it is also possible that these treatments are not good value for money. The benefit of the drugs and value for money is highly uncertain as studies trying to estimate the gain have been done with (1) previous variants of the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 being widespread, (2) where the proportion of people who have had vaccinations or who had previously had coronavirus disease 2019 is low and (3) where standard treatment was that when coronavirus disease 2019 was first identified, and not the drugs used now. Because of these differences, and the unknown price of some interventions, we cannot confidently say which (if any) treatments help patients the most, or which treatment represents the best value for money. Further research, in current conditions, would improve the accuracy of our answers.

biomArker-guided Duration of Antibiotic treatment in hospitalised Patients with suspecTed Sepsis (ADAPT-Sepsis): A protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Aim: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis. Design: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial. Setting: UK NHS hospitals. Target population: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis. Health technology: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed. Conclusion: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice.

BDNF-induced increase of PSD-95 in dendritic spines requires dynamic microtubule invasions.

Microtubules (MTs) are capable of entering dendritic spines in mature hippocampal neurons through dynamic polymerization. Although these MT invasions are directly associated with neuronal activity, their function remains unknown. Here we demonstrate in mouse hippocampal neurons that MT entries into spines regulate the increase in postsynaptic density-95 (PSD-95) protein after brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) treatment. Using multiwavelength total internal reflectance fluorescence microscopy, we show that BDNF prolonged the average MT dwell time in spines and that this effect was dependent on TrkB receptor activation. Further examination revealed that peaks of MT polymerization into spines corresponded to rapid PSD-95 increases in the spine head. Over time, spines targeted by MTs after BDNF application, but not before, showed a robust increase in PSD-95. Conversely, spines completely devoid of MT invasions showed no significant change in the level of PSD-95. Pharmacological inhibition of MT dynamics abolished the BDNF-induced increase in PSD-95. Together, these results support the hypothesis that the well known increase in PSD-95 within spines after BDNF treatment is dependent on MT invasions of dendritic spines. Thus, our study provides a direct link between dynamic MTs and the postsynaptic structure, and provides a functional role for MT invasion of dendritic spines.

Dynamic and Flexible Survival Models for Extrapolation of Relative Survival: A Case Study and Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Extrapolation of survival data is a key task in health technology assessments (HTAs), which may be improved by incorporating general population mortality data via relative survival models. Dynamic survival models are a promising method for extrapolation that may be expanded to dynamic relative survival models (DRSMs), a novel development presented here. There are currently neither examples of dynamic models in HTA nor comparisons of DRSMs with other relative survival models when used for survival extrapolation. METHODS: An existing appraisal, for which there had been disagreement over the approach to survival extrapolation, was chosen and the health economic model recreated. The sensitivity of estimates of cost-effectiveness to different model choices (standard survival models, DSMs, and DRSMs) and specifications was examined. The appraisal informed a simulation study to evaluate DRSMs with relative survival models based on both standard and spline-based (flexible) models. RESULTS: Dynamic models provided insight into the behavior of the trend in the hazard function and how it may vary during the extrapolated phase. DRSMs led to extrapolations with improved plausibility for which model choice may be based on clinical input. In the simulation study, the flexible and dynamic relative survival models performed similarly and provided highly variable extrapolations. LIMITATIONS: Further experience with these models is required to identify settings when they are most useful, and they provide sufficiently accurate extrapolations. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic models provide a flexible and attractive method for extrapolating survival data and facilitate the use of clinical input for model choice. Flexible and dynamic relative survival models make few structural assumptions and can improve extrapolation plausibility, but further research is required into methods for reducing the variability in extrapolations.

Mean lifetime survival estimates following solid organ transplantation in the US and UK.

AIMS: Accurately estimating mean survival after solid organ transplant (SOT) is crucial for efficient healthcare resource allocation decisions. However, registry-based post-transplant recipient survival estimates vary greatly and are incomplete. Often, the methods used in lifetime survival extrapolation may not fit complex transplant data and therefore alternative methods are required. We aimed to explore the flexible cubic spline methodology as a meaningful alternative for estimating lifetime survival following SOT. METHODS: Survival analyses were conducted in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant recipients. Mean survival was estimated using flexible cubic splines on the hazard scale fitted with three knots, based on where hazards changed direction, clinical advice, and best-fit curve using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. The tail was extrapolated when data were no longer available. Extrapolation tails were compared with general population mortality, using age-matched life table hazards, and the highest hazards were taken at all times. RESULTS: We found that mean survival post-transplant was longest for kidney transplants (US: 22.79 years; UK: 26.58 years), followed by liver (US: 20.90 years; UK: 20.38 years), heart (US: 14.82 years; UK: 15.85 years), and lung (US: 9.28 years; UK: 9.21 years). A sensitivity analysis using two knots found differences in survival ranging from -1.30 to +4.83 years across SOTs examined. LIMITATIONS: This study does not represent individual patient survival, survival by age groups, multiple-organ transplants, or assess factors that may impact overall or organ survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study estimates reflect real-world survival following SOTs and demonstrate the importance of including long-term hazards in survival estimations. These lifetime survival estimates can be used by decision-makers in situations where means are preferred over medians (e.g. population projections, budgetary estimates, and cost-effectiveness models) and can thus offer a meaningful alternative to the estimates used and accepted in current practice.

Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety. METHOD: Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e-cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow-up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta-regression to explore covariates. RESULTS: We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34-3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27-14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second-best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04-1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modeled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20K per quality-adjusted life year gained and also using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30K and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price.

Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence: is direct evidence always more reliable?

OBJECTIVES: To present a case study involving the reduction in incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), illustrating difficulties that may arise when following the common preference for direct evidence over indirect evidence. METHODS: Evidence of the efficacy of treatments was identified from two previous systematic reviews. We used Bayesian evidence synthesis to estimate relative treatment effects based on direct evidence, indirect evidence, and both pooled together. We checked for inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence and explored the role of one specific trial using cross-validation. A subsequent review identified further studies not available at the time of the original analysis. We repeated the analyses on the enlarged evidence base. RESULTS: We found substantial inconsistency in the original evidence base. The median odds ratio of FN for primary pegfilgrastim versus no primary G-CSF was 0.06 (95% credible interval: 0.02-0.19) based on direct evidence, but 0.27 (95% credible interval: 0.13-0.53) based on indirect evidence (P value for consistency hypothesis 0.027). The additional trials were consistent with the earlier indirect, rather than the direct, evidence, and there was no inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates in the updated evidence. The earlier inconsistency was due to one trial comparing primary pegfilgrastim with no primary G-CSF. Predictive cross-validation showed that this study was inconsistent with the evidence as a whole and with other trials making this comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Cochrane Handbook and the NICE Methods Guide express a preference for direct evidence. A more robust strategy, which is in line with the accepted principles of evidence synthesis, would be to combine all relevant and appropriate information, whether direct or indirect.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. At the time of writing (October 2020), the number of cases of COVID-19 had been approaching 38 million and more than 1 million deaths were attributable to it. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in hospital wards. OBJECTIVE: The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests. A further objective was to assess occupancy levels in hospital areas, such as waiting bays, before allocation to an appropriate bay. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING: The perspective was that of the UK NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical hospital with an accident and emergency department. METHODS: An individual patient model was constructed that simulated the spread of disease and mortality within the hospital and recorded occupancy levels. Thirty-two strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests were modelled. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits, and key patient outcomes, such as death and intensive care unit care, caused directly by COVID-19 were recorded. RESULTS: A SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile appears to have a relatively small number of infections, a low occupancy level within the waiting bays, and a high net monetary benefit. However, if hospital laboratory testing can produce results in 6 hours, then the benefits of point-of-care tests may be reduced. The acceptable target product profiles performed less well and had lower net monetary benefits than both a laboratory-based test with a 24-hour turnaround time and strategies using data from currently available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. The desirable and acceptable point-of-care test target product profiles had lower requirement for patients to be in waiting bays before being allocated to an appropriate bay than laboratory-based tests, which may be of high importance in some hospitals. Tests that appeared more cost-effective also had better patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. The example hospital simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Should a SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile become available, this appears promising, particularly when the reduction on the requirements for waiting bays before allocation to a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, or a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, is considered. The results produced should be informative to decision-makers who can identify the results most pertinent to their specific circumstances. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results could be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of, and the reduction in time to test result associated with, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, and on the impact of these tests on occupancy of waiting bays and isolation bays. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING: This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 is highly infectious, and this can cause problems in hospitals, where the virus can spread quickly. Laboratory-based tests can determine whether or not a patient has SARS-CoV-2, but these tests are not perfect and can require a considerable time to provide a result. Point-of-care tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 are being developed that may have much shorter times to a test result, although these are likely to be less accurate than laboratory-based tests. The benefit of quicker tests is that a decision to put a patient in a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay or in a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay can be made sooner, limiting contact between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and patients without SARS-CoV-2 and reducing the risk of infection transmission. The disadvantage of reduced accuracy is that some patients may be allocated to the wrong bay, increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A computer model was built to explore the impact of using SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests for people admitted to hospital. This model estimated the number of infections and deaths due to COVID-19, the costs of testing, and the number of people waiting to be put in an appropriate bay. Strategies were run using different values, including the time to get a test result, the accuracy of tests and whether or not staff who do not have symptoms should be tested. The results of the model indicated that point-of-care tests could be good if there was a large reduction in the time to get a test result and if accuracy was high. However, it is not certain whether or not such tests will become available. When newer SARS-CoV-2 tests are available, the model will allow an estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the test to be made.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point of care tests for routine testing in residential care homes: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which at the time of writing (January 2021) was responsible for more than 2.25 million deaths worldwide and over 100,000 deaths in the UK. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in residential care homes. OBJECTIVE: The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests in the setting of a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING: The perspective was that of the NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Care homes with en suite rooms and with shared facilities were modelled separately. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was constructed to model individual residents and simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 once it had entered the residential care facility. The numbers of COVID-19-related deaths and critical cases were recorded in addition to the number of days spent in isolation. Thirteen strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests and for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Scenario analyses modelled early release from isolation based on receipt of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and the impact of vaccination. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness results depended on the proportion of residential care facilities penetrated by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with desirable target product profiles appear to have high net monetary benefit values. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with acceptable target product profiles had low net monetary benefit values because of unnecessary isolations. The benefit of allowing early release from isolation depended on whether or not the facility had en suite rooms. The greater the assumed efficacy of vaccination, the lower the net monetary benefit values associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, when assuming that a vaccine lowers the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. Some degree of Monte Carlo sampling error persists because of the timelines of the project. The example care home simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly the cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests have considerable potential for benefit for use in residential care facilities, but whether or not this materialises depends on the diagnostic accuracy and costs of forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results would be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of and the reduction in time to test result associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests when used in the context of residential care facilities, the proportion of care home penetrated by SARS-CoV-2 and the levels of immunity once vaccination is administered. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING: This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 is highly infectious, and this can cause problems in care homes, where the virus can spread quickly. Laboratory-based tests can determine whether or not someone has SARS-CoV-2, but these tests are not perfect and can take a long time to provide a result. Point-of-care tests that can be performed quickly in the care home to detect SARS-CoV-2 are being developed and they may have much shorter times to get a result than laboratory-based tests, although with worse accuracy. The benefit of quicker tests is that decisions to put residents into or release them from isolation can be made sooner, reducing the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 and reducing time in isolation. The disadvantage of reduced accuracy is that wrong decisions could be made, resulting in either unnecessary isolation or increased spread of SARS-CoV-2. A computer model was built to explore the impact of using SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests for residents of care homes. The model estimated the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, deaths due to COVID-19 and days in isolation. Strategies were run using different values, including the time to get a test result back, the accuracy of tests, the proportion of care homes where there is a case of SARS-CoV-2, whether residents were isolated individually or in groups and how well vaccines work. The results of the model indicated that point-of-care tests could be good if there was a large decrease in the time to get a test result back, if accuracy was high and if vaccination protection was moderate. However, the accuracy and speed of future point-of-care tests is uncertain. When newer SARS-CoV-2 tests are available, the model will allow an estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tests to be made.