Identification of potentially undiagnosed patients with nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease using machine learning applied to primary care data in the UK.

Nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease (NTMLD) is a rare lung disease often missed due to a low index of suspicion and unspecific clinical presentation. This retrospective study was designed to characterise the prediagnosis features of NTMLD patients in primary care and to assess the feasibility of using machine learning to identify undiagnosed NTMLD patients.IQVIA Medical Research Data (incorporating THIN, a Cegedim Database), a UK electronic medical records primary care database was used. NTMLD patients were identified between 2003 and 2017 by diagnosis in primary or secondary care or record of NTMLD treatment regimen. Risk factors and treatments were extracted in the prediagnosis period, guided by literature and expert clinical opinion. The control population was enriched to have at least one of these features.741 NTMLD and 112 784 control patients were selected. Annual prevalence rates of NTMLD from 2006 to 2016 increased from 2.7 to 5.1 per 100 000. The most common pre-existing diagnoses and treatments for NTMLD patients were COPD and asthma and penicillin, macrolides and inhaled corticosteroids. Compared to random testing, machine learning improved detection of patients with NTMLD by almost a thousand-fold with AUC of 0.94. The total prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed cases of NTMLD in 2016 was estimated to range between 9 and 16 per 100 000.This study supports the feasibility of machine learning applied to primary care data to screen for undiagnosed NTMLD patients, with results indicating that there may be a substantial number of undiagnosed cases of NTMLD in the UK.

Mathematical modeling of hepatitis c virus (HCV) prevention among people who inject drugs: A review of the literature and insights for elimination strategies.

In 2016, the World Health Organization issued global elimination targets for hepatitis C virus (HCV), including an 80% reduction in HCV incidence by 2030. The vast majority of new HCV infections occur among people who inject drugs (PWID), and as such elimination strategies require particular focus on this population. As governments urgently require guidance on how to achieve elimination among PWID, mathematical modeling can provide critical information on the level and targeting of intervention are required. In this paper we review the epidemic modeling literature on HCV transmission and prevention among PWID, highlight main differences in mathematical formulation, and discuss key insights provided by these models in terms of achieving WHO elimination targets among PWID. Overall, the vast majority of modeling studies utilized a deterministic compartmental susceptible-infected-susceptible structure, with select studies utilizing individual-based network transmission models. In general, these studies found that harm reduction alone is unlikely to achieve elimination targets among PWID. However, modeling indicates elimination is achievable in a wide variety of epidemic settings with harm reduction scale-up combined with modest levels of HCV treatment for PWID. Unfortunately, current levels of testing and treatment are generally insufficient to achieve elimination in most settings, and require further scale-up. Additionally, network-based treatment strategies as well as prison-based treatment and harm reduction provision could provide important additional population benefits. Overall, epidemic modeling has and continues to play a critical role in informing HCV elimination strategies worldwide.

A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain. METHODS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP = 1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders. RESULTS: Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour (GIST) in Germany.

BACKGROUND: No study has compared the cost-effectiveness of active treatment options for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours in patients who progressed on or are intolerant to prior treatment with imatinib and sunitinib. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to imatinib rechallenge in this setting in Germany. METHODS: Hazard ratios for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge were estimated by indirect comparison. A state distribution model was used to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a lifetime horizon. Drug acquisition costs and utilities were derived from clinical trial data and published literature; non-drug costs were not included. The outcomes measured were treatment costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The indirect comparison suggested that median PFS and OS were longer with regorafenib compared to imatinib but results were not statistically significant. Regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge was estimated to have hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.11) for PFS and 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.77) for OS, with substantial uncertainty due to the rarity of the disease and small number of patients within the trials. Regorafenib treatment per patient over a lifetime horizon provided an additional 0.61 LYs and 0.42 QALYs over imatinib rechallenge, with additional direct drug costs of €8,773. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €21,127 per QALY gained. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000 per QALY, regorafenib had a 67% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available clinical data, this analysis suggests that regorafenib is cost-effective compared with imatinib rechallenge in Germany.

A network meta-analysis of atomoxetine and osmotic release oral system methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult patients.

The lack of head-to-head clinical studies powered to compare atomoxetine and osmotic release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate necessitates treatment comparison by methods that include indirect evidence such as network meta-analysis (NMA). A NMA assessing the relative treatment effects of atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was conducted. Studies were identified by systematic literature review. Analyses summarised improvements in efficacy, measured by ADHD-specific scales, using Cohen'sdto calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD), and all cause discontinuations. Results showed effect sizes (SMD, 95% credible interval (CrI)) relative to placebo that did not differ significantly between atomoxetine (0.46, 0.36-0.56) and OROS methylphenidate (0.51, 0.40-0.63) in clinical studies of up to 12 weeks' duration (SMD, 95% CrI for atomoxetine versus OROS methylphenidate: -0.05, -0.18-0.08). Patients treated with these medications responded better than those given placebo across all analyses. There was also no significant difference in discontinuation rates between atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate (odds ratio, 95% CrI: 0.85, 0.53-1.35). Between-study heterogeneity was low overall. Results of this NMA suggest that the efficacy of atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate in adults does not differ significantly. Clinical guidelines may require amendment to reflect these recent data.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44mcg 3-times a week vs no treatment for patients with clinically isolated syndrome in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous interferon (sc IFN) beta-1a 44 mcg 3-times weekly (tiw) vs no treatment at reducing the risk of conversion to multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in Sweden. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical course of patients with CIS treated with sc IFN beta-1a 44 mcg tiw or no treatment over a 40-year time horizon. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective in 2012 Swedish kronor (SEK). Treatment efficacy data were derived from the REFLEX trial; resource use and quality-of-life (QoL) data were obtained from the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses explored whether results were robust to changes in input values and use of Poser criteria. RESULTS: Using McDonald criteria sc IFN beta-1a was cost-saving and more effective (i.e., dominant) vs no treatment. Gains in progression free life years (PFLYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 1.63 and 0.53, respectively. Projected cost savings were 270,263 SEK. For Poser criteria cost savings of 823,459 SEK were estimated, with PFLY and QALY gains of 4.12 and 1.38, respectively. Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a remained dominant from a payer perspective. Results were insensitive to key input variation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 99.9% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 500,000 SEK/QALY. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk of MS conversion. It is associated with lower costs, greater QALY gains, and more time free of MS. LIMITATIONS: The risk of conversion from CIS to MS was extrapolated from 2-year trial data. Treatment benefit was assumed to persist over the model duration, although long-term data to support this are unavailable. Cost and QoL data from MS patients were assumed applicable to CIS patients.

Optimal control of hepatitis C antiviral treatment programme delivery for prevention amongst a population of injecting drug users.

In most developed countries, HCV is primarily transmitted by injecting drug users (IDUs). HCV antiviral treatment is effective, and deemed cost-effective for those with no re-infection risk. However, few active IDUs are currently treated. Previous modelling studies have shown antiviral treatment for active IDUs could reduce HCV prevalence, and there is emerging interest in developing targeted IDU treatment programmes. However, the optimal timing and scale-up of treatment is unknown, given the real-world constraints commonly existing for health programmes. We explore how the optimal programme is affected by a variety of policy objectives, budget constraints, and prevalence settings. We develop a model of HCV transmission and treatment amongst active IDUs, determine the optimal treatment programme strategy over 10 years for two baseline chronic HCV prevalence scenarios (30% and 45%), a range of maximum annual budgets (£50,000-300,000 per 1,000 IDUs), and a variety of objectives: minimising health service costs and health utility losses; minimising prevalence at 10 years; minimising health service costs and health utility losses with a final time prevalence target; minimising health service costs with a final time prevalence target but neglecting health utility losses. The largest programme allowed for a given budget is the programme which minimises both prevalence at 10 years, and HCV health utility loss and heath service costs, with higher budgets resulting in greater cost-effectiveness (measured by cost per QALY gained compared to no treatment). However, if the objective is to achieve a 20% relative prevalence reduction at 10 years, while minimising both health service costs and losses in health utility, the optimal treatment strategy is an immediate expansion of coverage over 5-8 years, and is less cost-effective. By contrast, if the objective is only to minimise costs to the health service while attaining the 20% prevalence reduction, the programme is deferred until the final years of the decade, and is the least cost-effective of the scenarios.