Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi – a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE® (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest™ (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-offlight mass spectrometry). Data sources: Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. Limitations: Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. Conclusions: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid and strontium-89 as bone protecting treatments in addition to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer: results from the TRAPEZE trial (ISRCTN 12808747)

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding zoledronic acid or strontium-89 to standard docetaxel chemotherapy for patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on resource use and quality of life for 707 patients collected prospectively in the TRAPEZE 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial (ISRCTN 12808747) were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of i) zoledronic acid versus no zoledronic acid (ZA vs. no ZA), and ii) strontium-89 versus no strontium-89 (Sr89 vs. no Sr89). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK and included expenditures for trial treatments, concomitant medications, and use of related hospital and primary care services. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated according to patients' responses to the generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L instrument, which evaluates health status. Results are expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS: The per-patient cost for ZA was £12 667, £251 higher than the equivalent cost in the no ZA group. Patients in the ZA group had on average 0.03 QALYs more than their counterparts in no ZA group. The ICER for this comparison was £8 005. Sr89 was associated with a cost of £13 230, £1365 higher than no Sr89, and a gain of 0.08 QALYs compared to no Sr89. The ICER for Sr89 was £16 884. The probabilities of ZA and Sr89 being cost-effective were 0.64 and 0.60, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bone-targeting treatments to standard chemotherapy led to a small improvement in QALYs for a modest increase in cost (or cost-savings). ZA and Sr89 resulted in ICERs below conventional willingness-to-pay per QALY thresholds, suggesting that their addition to chemotherapy may represent a cost-effective use of resources.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ADDITION OF BEVACIZUMAB TO STANDARD CHEMOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT PLEURAL MESOTHELIOMA

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Impfung gegen humane Papillomaviren (HPV) zur Prävention HPV 16/18 induzierter Zervixkarzinome und derer Vorstufen

Einleitung: Notwendige Voraussetzung für die Entstehung von Zervixkarzinomen ist eine persistierende Infektion mit humanen Papillomaviren (HPV). Die HPV-Typen 16 und 18 verursachen mit etwa 70% den überwiegenden Teil der Zervixkarzinome. Seit 2006/2007 stehen zwei Impfstoffe gegen HPV 16 und 18 zur Verfügung. Fragestellung: Wie effektiv ist die HPV-Impfung hinsichtlich der Reduktion von Zervixkarzinomen bzw. ihren Vorstufen (CIN)? Stellt die HPV-Impfung eine kosteneffektive Ergänzung zur derzeitigen Screeningpraxis dar? Gibt es Unterschiede bezüglich der Kosten-Effektivität zwischen den beiden verfügbaren Impfstoffen? Sollte aus gesundheitsökonomischer Perspektive eine Empfehlung für den Einsatz der HPV-Impfung gegeben werden? Falls ja, welche Empfehlungen bezüglich der Ausgestaltung einer Impfstrategie lassen sich ableiten? Welche ethischen, sozialen und juristischen Implikationen sind zu berücksichtigen? Methoden: Basierend auf einer systematischen Literaturrecherche werden randomisierte kontrollierte Studien zur Wirksamkeit der HPV-Impfungen für die Prävention von Zervixkarzinomen bzw. deren Vorstufen, den zervikalen intraepithelialen Neoplasien, identifiziert. Gesundheitsökonomische Modellierungen werden zur Beantwortung der ökonomischen Fragestellungen herangezogen. Die Beurteilung der Qualität der medizinischen und ökonomischen Studien erfolgt mittels anerkannter Standards zur systematischen Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Studien Ergebnisse: Bei zu Studienbeginn HPV 16/18 negativen Frauen, die alle Impfdosen erhalten haben, liegt die Wirksamkeit der Impfungen gegen HPV 16/18-induzierten CIN 2 oder höher bei 98% bis 100%. Nebenwirkungen der Impfung sind vor allem mit der Injektion assoziierte Beschwerden (Rötungen, Schwellungen, Schmerzen). Es gibt keine signifikanten Unterschiede für schwerwiegende unerwünschte Ereignisse zwischen Impf- und Placebogruppe. Die Ergebnisse der Basisfallanalysen der gesundheitsökonomischen Modellierungen reichen bei ausschließlicher Berücksichtigung direkter Kostenkomponenten von ca. 3.000 Euro bis ca. 40.000 Euro pro QALY (QALY = Qualitätskorrigiertes Lebensjahr), bzw. von ca. 9.000 Euro bis ca. 65.000 Euro pro LYG (LYG = Gewonnenes Lebensjahr). Diskussion: Nach den Ergebnissen der eingeschlossenen Studien sind die verfügbaren HPV-Impfstoffe wirksam zur Prävention gegen durch HPV 16/18 verursachte prämaligne Läsionen der Zervix. Unklar ist derzeit noch die Dauer des Impfschutzes. Hinsichtlich der Nebenwirkungen ist die Impfung als sicher einzustufen. Allerdings ist die Fallzahl der Studien nicht ausreichend groß, um das Auftreten sehr seltener Nebenwirkungen zuverlässig zu bestimmen. Inwieweit die HPV-Impfung zur Reduktion der Inzidenz und Mortalität des Zervixkarzinoms in Deutschland führen wird, hängt nicht allein von der klinischen Wirksamkeit der Impfstoffe ab, sondern wird von einer Reihe weiterer Faktoren wie der Impfquote oder den Auswirkungen der Impfungen auf die Teilnahmerate an den bestehenden Screeningprogrammen determiniert. Infolge der Heterogenität der methodischen Rahmenbedingungen und Inputparameter variieren die Ergebnisse der gesundheitsökonomischen Modellierungen erheblich. Fast alle Modellanalysen lassen jedoch den Schluss zu, dass die Einführung einer Impfung mit lebenslanger Schutzdauer bei Fortführung der derzeitigen Screeningpraxis als kosteneffektiv zu bewerten ist. Eine Gegenüberstellung der beiden verschiedenen Impfstoffe ergab, dass die Modellierung der tetravalenten Impfung bei der Berücksichtigung von QALY als Ergebnisparameter in der Regel mit einem niedrigeren (besseren) Kosten-Effektivitäts-Verhältnis einhergeht als die Modellierung der bivalenten Impfung, da auch Genitalwarzen berücksichtigt werden. In Sensitivitätsanalysen stellten sich sowohl die Schutzdauer der Impfung als auch die Höhe der Diskontierungsrate als wesentliche Einflussparameter der Kosten-Effektivität heraus. Schlussfolgerung: Die Einführung der HPV-Impfung kann zu einem verringerten Auftreten von Zervixkarzinomen bei geimpften Frauen führen. Jedoch sollten die Impfprogramme von weiteren Evaluationen begleitet werden, um die langfristige Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit beurteilen sowie die Umsetzung der Impfprogramme optimieren zu können. Von zentraler Bedeutung sind hohe Teilnahmeraten sowohl an den Impfprogrammen als auch - auch bei geimpften Frauen - an den Früherkennungsuntersuchungen. Da die Kosten-Effektivität entscheidend von der Schutzdauer, die bislang ungewiss ist, beeinflusst wird, ist eine abschließende Beurteilung der Kosten-Effektivität der HPV-Impfung nicht möglich. Eine langfristige Schutzdauer ist eine bedeutende Vorraussetzung für die Kosten-Effektivität der Impfung. Der Abschluss einer Risk-Sharing-Vereinbarung zwischen Kostenträgern und Herstellerfirmen stellt eine Option dar, um die Auswirkungen der Unsicherheit der Schutzdauer auf die Kosten-Effektivität zu begrenzen.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared to low-molecular-weight heparins and vitamin k antagonists for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism

Objective: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a 6-month treatment of apixaban (10 mg/12h, first 7 days; 5 mg/12h afterwards) for the treatment of the first event of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prevention of recurrences, versus low-molecular-weight heparins/vitamin K antagonists treatment (LMWH/VKA). Material and methods: A lifetime Markov model with 13 health states was used for describing the course of the disease. Efficacy and safety data were obtained from AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT clinical trials; health outcomes were measured as life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The chosen perspective of this analysis has been the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Drugs, management of VTE and complications costs were obtained from several Spanish data sources (€, 2014). A 3% discount rate was applied to health outcomes and costs. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed in order to assess the robustness of the results. Results: Apixaban was the most effective therapy with 7.182 LYG and 5.865 QALY, versus 7.160 LYG and 5.838 QALYs with LMWH/VKA. Furthermore, apixaban had a lower total cost (€13,374.70 vs €13,738.30). Probabilistic SA confirmed dominance of apixaban (led to better health outcomes with less associated costs) in 89% of the simulations. Conclusions: Apixaban 5 mg/12h versus LMWH/VKA was an efficient therapeutic strategy for the treatment and prevention of recurrences of VTE from the NHS perspective.