Evidence-based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is responsible for the assessment of medical imaging tests proposed for public funding. A number of factors related to the clinical or cost effectiveness of an imaging service may impact on the funding decision. OBJECTIVE: To determine what evidentiary and economic factors impact most on MSAC recommendations for the funding of imaging tests. METHODS: Information was extracted on health technology assessments (HTAs) of medical imaging tests published on the MSAC website, with a funding decision between 2006 to July 2021. Imaging tests with diagnostic, staging or screening indications were eligible. Data were extracted in test-indication pairs and included data on evidence quality, quantity, consistency of findings, cost-effectiveness and financial impact. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with adjustments for clustered data. RESULTS: Overall, 42 imaging test applications to MSAC were included, representing 91 clinical indications. Most were diagnostic tests. The most common evidentiary concerns reported by MSAC were limited evidence (36%), low quality evidence (26%), and applicability of the data (22%). The reference standard for diagnostic accuracy was imperfect or not appropriate in 25% of the indications. In regression analyses, uncertainty about cost-effectiveness of an imaging service predicted most negative funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The single biggest contributor to a negative funding decision by MSAC was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of the imaging service. This was likely driven by uncertainty regarding the impact on patient health. HTAs that are able to demonstrate the clinical utility of a new imaging service are more likely to publicly funded.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.