1
|
Peters JL, Snowsill TM, Griffin E, Robinson S, Hyde CJ. Variation in Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Methodological Review. Value Health 2022; 25:656-665. [PMID: 35365310 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2021] [Revised: 10/24/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES There is significant heterogeneity in the results of published model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. We sought to understand and demonstrate how these models differ. METHODS An expansion and update of a previous systematic review (N = 19). Databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Studies were included if strategies involving (single or multiple) LDCT screening were compared with no screening or other imaging modalities, in a population at risk of lung cancer. More detailed data extraction of studies from the previous review was conducted. Studies were critically appraised using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS A total of 16 new studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 35 studies. There are geographic and temporal differences and differences in screening intervals and eligible populations. Studies varied in the types of models used, for example, decision tree, Markov, and microsimulation models. Most conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (using life-years gained) or cost-utility analysis. The potential for overdiagnosis was considered in many models, unlike with other potential consequences of screening. Some studies report considering lead-time bias, but fewer mention length bias. Generally, the more recent studies, involving more complex modeling, tended to meet more of the critical appraisal criteria, with notable exceptions. CONCLUSIONS There are many differences across the economic evaluations contributing to variation in estimates of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Several methodological factors and evidence needs have been highlighted that will require consideration in future economic evaluations to achieve better agreement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaime L Peters
- Exeter Test Group, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, England, UK.
| | - Tristan M Snowsill
- Health Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, England, UK
| | | | - Sophie Robinson
- PenTAG, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, England, UK
| | - Chris J Hyde
- Exeter Test Group, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Snowsill TM, Ryan NAJ, Crosbie EJ. Cost-Effectiveness of the Manchester Approach to Identifying Lynch Syndrome in Women with Endometrial Cancer. J Clin Med 2020; 9:E1664. [PMID: 32492863 PMCID: PMC7356917 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2020] [Revised: 05/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome responsible for 3% of all endometrial cancer and 5% in those aged under 70 years. It is unclear whether universal testing for LS in endometrial cancer patients would be cost-effective. The Manchester approach to identifying LS in endometrial cancer patients uses immunohistochemistry (IHC) to detect mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, incorporates testing for MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and incorporates genetic testing for pathogenic MMR variants. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Manchester approach on the basis of primary research data from clinical practice in Manchester. The Proportion of Endometrial Tumours Associated with Lynch Syndrome (PETALS) study informed estimates of diagnostic performances for a number of different strategies. A recent microcosting study was adapted and was used to estimate diagnostic costs. A Markov model was used to predict long-term costs and health outcomes (measured in quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) for individuals and their relatives. Bootstrapping and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to estimate the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. The Manchester approach dominated other reflex testing strategies when considering diagnostic costs and Lynch syndrome cases identified. When considering long-term costs and QALYs the Manchester approach was the optimal strategy, costing £5459 per QALY gained (compared to thresholds of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY commonly used in the National Health Service (NHS)). Cost-effectiveness is not an argument for restricting testing to younger patients or those with a strong family history. Universal testing for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients is expected to be cost-effective in the U.K. (NHS), and the Manchester approach is expected to be the optimal testing strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tristan M. Snowsill
- Health Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK
| | - Neil A. J. Ryan
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK;
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK;
- Academic Centre for Women’s Health, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Emma J. Crosbie
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK;
- Division of Gynaecology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Crosbie EJ, Ryan NAJ, Arends MJ, Bosse T, Burn J, Cornes JM, Crawford R, Eccles D, Frayling IM, Ghaem-Maghami S, Hampel H, Kauff ND, Kitchener HC, Kitson SJ, Manchanda R, McMahon RFT, Monahan KJ, Menon U, Møller P, Möslein G, Rosenthal A, Sasieni P, Seif MW, Singh N, Skarrott P, Snowsill TM, Steele R, Tischkowitz M, Evans DG. The Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for the management of gynecological cancers in Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 2019; 21:2390-2400. [PMID: 30918358 PMCID: PMC6774998 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0489-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 129] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2018] [Accepted: 03/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There are no internationally agreed upon clinical guidelines as to which women with gynecological cancer would benefit from Lynch syndrome screening or how best to manage the risk of gynecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. The Manchester International Consensus Group was convened in April 2017 to address this unmet need. The aim of the Group was to develop clear and comprehensive clinical guidance regarding the management of the gynecological sequelae of Lynch syndrome based on existing evidence and expert opinion from medical professionals and patients. METHODS Stakeholders from Europe and North America worked together over a two-day workshop to achieve consensus on best practice. RESULTS Guidance was developed in four key areas: (1) whether women with gynecological cancer should be screened for Lynch syndrome and (2) how this should be done, (3) whether there was a role for gynecological surveillance in women at risk of Lynch syndrome, and (4) what preventive measures should be recommended for women with Lynch syndrome to reduce their risk of gynecological cancer. CONCLUSION This document provides comprehensive clinical guidance that can be referenced by both patients and clinicians so that women with Lynch syndrome can expect and receive appropriate standards of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma J Crosbie
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
- Directorate of Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
- Prevention Early Detection Theme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
| | - Neil A J Ryan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - Mark J Arends
- Division of Pathology & Centre for Comparative Pathology, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Institute of Genetics & Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Tjalling Bosse
- Pathology Department, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - John Burn
- Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Robin Crawford
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Diana Eccles
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Ian M Frayling
- Institute of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Heather Hampel
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Noah D Kauff
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Henry C Kitchener
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah J Kitson
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Raymond F T McMahon
- Department of Histopathology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Usha Menon
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Pål Møller
- Department of Tumor Biology, Institute of Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, part of Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Research Group Inherited Cancer, Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Center for Hereditary Tumors, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, University of Witten-, Herdecke, Germany
| | - Gabriela Möslein
- Center for Hereditary Tumors, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, University of Witten-, Herdecke, Germany
| | - Adam Rosenthal
- Department of Women's Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Peter Sasieni
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK
| | - Mourad W Seif
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
- Directorate of Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Naveena Singh
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Pauline Skarrott
- Lynch Syndrome UK, Linden House, 9/11 Main Street, Ingleton, Carnforth, UK
| | - Tristan M Snowsill
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- Health Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Robert Steele
- Division of Cancer, Medical Research Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Academic Laboratory of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Prevention Early Detection Theme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Snowsill TM, Moore J, Mujica Mota RE, Peters JL, Jones-Hughes TL, Huxley NJ, Coelho HF, Haasova M, Cooper C, Lowe JA, Varley-Campbell JL, Crathorne L, Allwood MJ, Anderson R. Immunosuppressive agents in adult kidney transplantation in the National Health Service: a model-based economic evaluation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2018; 32:1251-1259. [PMID: 28873970 DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfx074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2016] [Accepted: 03/22/2017] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Immunosuppression is required in kidney transplantation to prevent rejection and prolong graft survival. We conducted an economic evaluation to support England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in developing updated guidance on the use of immunosuppression, incorporating new immunosuppressive agents, and addressing changes in pricing and the evidence base. Methods A discrete-time state transition model was developed to simulate adult kidney transplant patients over their lifetime. A total of 16 different regimens were modelled to assess the cost-effectiveness of basiliximab and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rabbit ATG) as induction agents (with no antibody induction as a comparator) and immediate-release tacrolimus, prolonged-release tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus, everolimus and belatacept as maintenance agents (with ciclosporin and azathioprine as comparators). Graft survival was extrapolated from acute rejection rates, graft function and post-transplant diabetes rates, all estimated at 12 months post-transplantation. National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services costs were included. Cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per quality-adjusted life year were used. Results Basiliximab was predicted to be more effective and less costly than rabbit ATG and induction without antibodies. Immediate-release tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil were cost-effective as maintenance therapies. Other therapies were either more expensive and less effective or would only be cost-effective if a threshold in excess of £100 000 per quality-adjusted life year were used. Conclusions A regimen comprising induction with basiliximab, followed by maintenance therapy with immediate-release tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, is likely to be effective for uncomplicated adult kidney transplant patients and a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tristan M Snowsill
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jason Moore
- Exeter Kidney Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - Ruben E Mujica Mota
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jaime L Peters
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | | | - Nicola J Huxley
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Helen F Coelho
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Marcela Haasova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Chris Cooper
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jenny A Lowe
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jo L Varley-Campbell
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Louise Crathorne
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Matt J Allwood
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Rob Anderson
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tikhonova IA, Hoyle MW, Snowsill TM, Cooper C, Varley-Campbell JL, Rudin CE, Mujica Mota RE. Azacitidine for Treating Acute Myeloid Leukaemia with More Than 30 % Bone Marrow Blasts: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 2017; 35:363-373. [PMID: 27752999 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0453-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of azacitidine (Celgene) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia with more than 30 % bone marrow blasts in adults who are not eligible for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, as part of the NICE's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Peninsula Technology Assessment Group was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness data used in the company's economic analysis were derived from a single randomised controlled trial, AZA-AML-001. It was an international, multicentre, controlled, phase III study with an open-label, parallel-group design conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of azacitidine against a conventional care regimen (CCR). The CCR was a composite comparator of acute myeloid leukaemia treatments currently available in the National Health Service: intensive chemotherapy followed by best supportive care (BSC) upon disease relapse or progression, non-intensive chemotherapy followed by BSC and BSC only. In AZA-AML-001, the primary endpoint was overall survival. Azacitidine appeared to be superior to the CCR, with median overall survival of 10.4 and 6.5 months, respectively. However, in the intention-to-treat analysis, the survival advantage associated with azacitidine was not statistically significant. The company submitted a de novo economic evaluation based on a partitioned survival model with four health states: "Remission", "Non-remission", "Relapse/Progressive disease" and "Death". The model time horizon was 10 years. The perspective was the National Health Service and Personal Social Services. Costs and health effects were discounted at the rate of 3.5 % per year. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of azacitidine compared with the CCR was £20,648 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £17,423 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay of £20,000, £30,000 and £50,000 per QALY, the probability of azacitidine being cost effective was 0.699, 0.908 and 0.996, respectively. The ERG identified a number of errors in Celgene's model and concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust. After amendments to Celgene's model, the base-case ICER was £273,308 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £277,123 per QALY. At a willingness-to-pay of £100,000 per QALY, the probability of azacitidine being cost effective was less than 5 %. In all exploratory analyses conducted by the ERG, the ICER exceeded the NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Given the evidence provided in the submission, azacitidine did not fulfil NICE's end-of-life criteria. After considering the analyses performed by the ERG and submissions from clinician and patient experts, the NICE Appraisal Committee did not recommend azacitidine for this indication.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic/administration & dosage
- Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic/economics
- Azacitidine/administration & dosage
- Azacitidine/economics
- Bone Marrow Cells/cytology
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Humans
- Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/drug therapy
- Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/economics
- Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/pathology
- Models, Economic
- Quality-Adjusted Life Years
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- Survival Rate
- Technology Assessment, Biomedical/methods
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irina A Tikhonova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, South Cloisters, Room 3.09, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
| | - Martin W Hoyle
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, South Cloisters, Room 3.09, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK
| | - Tristan M Snowsill
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, South Cloisters, Room 3.09, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK
| | - Chris Cooper
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, South Cloisters, Room 3.09, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK
| | - Joanna L Varley-Campbell
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, South Cloisters, Room 3.09, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK
| | | | - Ruben E Mujica Mota
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, South Cloisters, Room 3.09, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK
| |
Collapse
|