Greater clarity on the nature of clinical utility is desirable. Of itself it may not bring about greater use of tests, including WGS (whole-genome sequencing), not least because clinical utility ...studies when performed may not confirm predicted changes in patient outcome. The notion that single “pivotal” clinical utility studies will achieve uptake needs to be questioned and that the evidence base for tests is likely to rely on patchworks of imperfect evidence embraced.
Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by constitutional pathogenic variants in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system, leading to increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other ...cancers. The study aimed to identify the incremental costs and consequences of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer.
A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of reflex testing strategies for identifying Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer taking the NHS perspective and a lifetime horizon. Model input parameters were sourced from various published sources. Consequences were measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/QALY was used.
Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome using MMR immunohistochemistry and MLH1 methylation testing was cost-effective versus no testing, costing £14 200 per QALY gained. There was uncertainty due to parameter imprecision, with an estimated 42% chance this strategy is not cost-effective compared with no testing. Age had a significant impact on cost-effectiveness, with testing not predicted to be cost-effective in patients aged 65 years and over.
Testing for Lynch syndrome in younger women with endometrial cancer using MMR immunohistochemistry and MLH1 methylation testing may be cost-effective. Age cut-offs may be controversial and adversely affect implementation.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Monogenic diabetes, a young-onset form of diabetes, is often misdiagnosed as type 1 diabetes, resulting in unnecessary treatment with insulin. A screening approach for monogenic diabetes is needed to ...accurately select suitable patients for expensive diagnostic genetic testing. We used C-peptide and islet autoantibodies, highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for discriminating type 1 from non-type 1 diabetes, in a biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes.
We studied patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger, currently younger than 50 years, in two U.K. regions with existing high detection of monogenic diabetes. The biomarker screening pathway comprised three stages:
) assessment of endogenous insulin secretion using urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (UCPCR);
) if UCPCR was ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, measurement of GAD and IA2 islet autoantibodies; and
) if negative for both autoantibodies, molecular genetic diagnostic testing for 35 monogenic diabetes subtypes.
A total of 1,407 patients participated (1,365 with no known genetic cause, 34 with monogenic diabetes, and 8 with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes). A total of 386 out of 1,365 (28%) patients had a UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, and 216 out of 386 (56%) were negative for GAD and IA2 and underwent molecular genetic testing. Seventeen new cases of monogenic diabetes were diagnosed (8 common Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young Sanger sequencing and 9 rarer causes next-generation sequencing) in addition to the 34 known cases (estimated prevalence of 3.6% 51/1,407 95% CI 2.7-4.7%). The positive predictive value was 20%, suggesting a 1-in-5 detection rate for the pathway. The negative predictive value was 99.9%.
The biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes is an effective, cheap, and easily implemented approach to systematically screening all young-onset patients. The minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.
Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current ...coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity.
We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites.
Of 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from - 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset.
RT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.
To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ...LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.
Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.
Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes such as chest X-ray (CXR) was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies (1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening and a no-screening control arm.
Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.
Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.
LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome ...(LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing.
(MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and
V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers.
To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without
promoter methylation testing and
V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors.
Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC,
V600E and
promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective.
Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.
Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Aims To provide systematic assessment of the safety and efficacy of autologous bone marrow-derived stem cell (BMSC) transplantation in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on clinical evidence. ...Methods and results The search strategy included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Current Controlled Trials Register through to August 2007 for randomized controlled trials of BMSC treatment for AMI. Thirteen trials (14 comparisons) with a total of 811 participants were included. Data were analysed using a random effects model. Overall, stem cell therapy improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 2.99% 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.26–4.72%, P = 0.0007, significantly reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) by 4.74 mL (95% CI, −7.84 to −1.64 mL, P = 0.003), and myocardial lesion area by 3.51% (95% CI, −5.91 to −1.11%, P = 0.004) compared with controls. Subgroup analysis revealed that there was statistical significant difference in LEVF in favour of BMSCs when cells were infused within 7 days following AMI and when the BMSC dose administered was higher than 108 BMSCs. In addition, there were trends in favour of benefit for most clinical outcomes examined, although it should be acknowledged that the 95%CI included no significant difference. Conclusion Stem cell treatment for AMI still holds promise. Clinically, these data suggest that improvement over conventional therapy can be achieved. Further, adequately powered trials using optimal dosing, longer term outcome assessments, more reliable, and more patient-centred outcomes are required.
Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid ...(DNA) mismatch repair genes.
To evaluate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify LS in newly diagnosed early-onset CRC patients (aged < 50 years). Cascade testing of relatives is employed in all strategies for individuals in whom LS is identified.
Systematic reviews were conducted of the test accuracy of microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or immunohistochemistry (IHC) in individuals with CRC at risk of LS, and of economic evidence relating to diagnostic strategies for LS. Reviews were carried out in April 2012 (test accuracy); and in February 2012, repeated in February 2013 (economic evaluations). Databases searched included MEDLINE (1946 to April week 3, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to week 17, 2012) and Web of Science (inception to 30 April 2012), and risk of bias for test accuracy was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) quality appraisal tool. A de novo economic model of diagnostic strategies for LS was developed.
Inconsistencies in study designs precluded pooling of diagnostic test accuracy results from a previous systematic review and nine subsequent primary studies. These were of mixed quality, with significant methodological concerns identified for most. IHC and MSI can both play a part in diagnosing LS but neither is gold standard. No UK studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and managing LS, although studies from other countries generally found some strategies to be cost-effective compared with no testing. The de novo model demonstrated that all strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with the most cost-effective strategy utilising MSI and BRAF testing incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = £5491 per QALY. The maximum health benefit to the population of interest would be obtained using universal germline testing, but this would not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with the next best strategy. When the age limit was raised from 50 to 60 and 70 years, the ICERs compared with no testing increased but remained below £20,000 per QALY (except for universal germline testing with an age limit of 70 years). The total net health benefit increased with the age limit as more individuals with LS were identified. Uncertainty was evaluated through univariate sensitivity analyses, which suggested that the parameters substantially affecting cost-effectiveness: were the risk of CRC for individuals with LS; the average number of relatives identified per index patient; the effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing metachronous CRC; the cost of colonoscopy; the duration of the psychological impact of genetic testing on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and the impact of prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on HRQoL (this had the potential to make all testing strategies more expensive and less effective than no testing).
The absence of high-quality data for the impact of prophylactic gynaecological surgery and the psychological impact of genetic testing on HRQoL is an acknowledged limitation.
Results suggest that reflex testing for LS in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 50 years is cost-effective. Such testing may also be cost-effective in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 60 or < 70 years. Results are subject to uncertainty due to a number of parameters, for some of which good estimates were not identified. We recommend future research to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing for LS in individuals with newly diagnosed endometrial or ovarian cancer, and the inclusion of aspirin chemoprevention. Further research is required to accurately estimate the impact of interventions on HRQoL.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002436.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
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.
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.
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.
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.
•Evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that screening is effective at reducing lung cancer deaths; the question of whether it is cost-effective remains uncertain.•There are a large number of economic evaluations in the literature, and the findings from these vary.•This article highlights the many methodological considerations made in model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer and shows important differences between the published economic evaluations.•This article provides a basis for deeper comparisons of economic evaluations of LDCT screening for lung cancer, highlighting the different methodological approaches.•It informs future economic evaluations on the challenges of modeling, the type of approaches taken, and the route to achieving greater agreement on the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening.•Policy makers should be aware important choices are made when economic evaluations are conducted on their behalf and should satisfy themselves that the choices are appropriate.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
For many users of the biomedical literature, abstracts may be the only source of information about a study. Hence, abstracts should allow readers to evaluate the objectives, key design features, and ...main results of the study. Several evaluations have shown deficiencies in the reporting of journal and conference abstracts across study designs and research fields, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Incomplete reporting compromises the value of research to key stakeholders. The authors of this article have developed a 12 item checklist of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts). This article presents the checklist, examples of complete reporting, and explanations for each item of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts.
PDF
