Management of intraspecific aggression in two bull giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. rothschildi).

Maintaining nonbreeding individuals in zoological collections may sometimes necessitate housing bachelor groups. In turn, intact cohabiting males may express increased intraspecific agonistic behaviors, and management intervention may be indicated. Where castration is deemed inappropriate (e.g., future breeding, or anesthesia and surgery-related risk), the immune contraceptive gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) is increasingly used as an alternative. When intraspecific aggression (sparring) in two bull giraffes housed as a bachelor pair at Knowsley Safari, UK, escalated in frequency and intensity (despite management interventions), further mediation was warranted to moderate sparring behaviors. The Ex situ Program recommendation was for one giraffe, the (slightly) older, outwardly mature (darker, strong musth) individual, to be treated with the GnRH vaccine Improvac® (Zoetis). To gauge the efficacy of vaccination, behavioral observations were conducted during each vaccination phase to identify changes in the frequency of sparring behaviors. In addition, fecal samples were collected by keepers and sent to Chester Zoo's Endocrine Diagnostic Laboratory for analysis to compare androgen levels between the pre- and postvaccination phases. Testicular atrophy was investigated using both visual inspection and photographic images. The GnRH vaccine Improvac® initially appeared to be associated with reduced aggressive behaviors in the two bull giraffes. Sparring behaviors decreased in frequency after each vaccination phase, although these did not significantly diminish until phase 4. Physiological markers were inconclusive as testosterone concentrations varied throughout the phases, although levels remained low after the fourth vaccination phase. Approximately 8 months following the initial vaccination with Improvac®, the unvaccinated bull exhibited heightened aggression, resulting in physical aggression and injury to the vaccinated bull. As a result, both bulls are now on an Improvac® vaccination schedule, which has enabled them to remain housed together as a bachelor pair.

Exploring Data Collection Priorities of Community Partners in Early Psychosis Care.

OBJECTIVE: Learning health care networks can significantly improve the effectiveness, consistency, and cost-effectiveness of care delivery. As part of a data harmonization process, incorporation of the perspectives of community partners to maximize the relevance and utility of the data is critical. METHODS: A mixed-methods focus group study was conducted with early psychosis program providers, leadership, service users, and family members to explore their priorities regarding data collection in early psychosis care. Focus group transcripts were analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two focus groups comprising 178 participants were conducted across 10 early psychosis programs. Participants considered functioning, quality of life, recovery, and symptoms of psychosis as key outcomes to assess, although variation by participants' roles was also evident. Participants emphasized the clinical utility of assessing a broad range of predictors of care outcomes, favored a broad conceptualization of the constructs assessed, and indicated a preference for client-reported measures. Participants also emphasized the importance of surveys adopting a recovery-oriented, strengths-based approach. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale aggregation of health care data collected as part of routine care offers opportunities for research and may have a positive impact on care delivery and quality improvement activities. However, these benefits are contingent on the data being both relevant and accessible to those who deliver and receive such care. This study highlights an approach that may inform the development of core assessment batteries used, optimizing the utility of such data for all community partners.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Talimogene Laherparepvec for Treating Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Amgen) of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's submission of T-VEC, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA410), issued in September 2016. T-VEC is an oncolytic virus therapy granted a marketing authorisation by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with unresectable melanoma that is regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a) with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. Clinical evidence for T-VEC versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was derived from the multinational, open-label randomised controlled OPTiM trial [Oncovex (GM-CSF) Pivotal Trial in Melanoma]. In accordance with T-VEC's marketing authorisation, the company's submission focused primarily on 249 patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease who constituted 57% of the overall trial population (T-VEC, n = 163 and GM-CSF, n = 86). Results from analyses of durable response rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure and overall survival all showed marked and statistically significant improvements for patients treated with T-VEC compared with those treated with GM-CSF. However, GM-CSF is not used to treat melanoma in clinical practice. It was not possible to compare treatment with T-VEC with an appropriate comparator using conventionally accepted methods due to the absence of comparative head-to-head data or trials with sufficient common comparators. Therefore, the company compared T-VEC with ipilimumab using what it described as modified Korn and two-step Korn methods. Results from these analyses suggested that treatment with T-VEC was at least as effective as treatment with ipilimumab. Using the discounted patient access scheme (PAS) price for T-VEC and list price for ipilimumab, the company reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the comparison of treatment with T-VEC versus ipilimumab, the ICER per QALY gained was -£16,367 using the modified Korn method and -£60,271 using the two-step Korn method. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) agreed with the ERG that the company's methods for estimating clinical effectiveness of T-VEC versus ipilimumab were flawed and therefore produced unreliable results for modelling progression in stage IIIB to stage IVM1a melanoma. The AC concluded that the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment with T-VEC compared with ipilimumab is unknown in patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease. However, the AC considered that T-VEC may be a reasonable option for treating patients who are unsuitable for treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies (such as ipilimumab). T-VEC was therefore recommended by NICE as a treatment option for adults with unresectable, regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB to stage IVM1a) melanoma that has not spread to bone, brain, lung or other internal organs, only if treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies is not suitable and the company provides T-VEC at the agreed discounted PAS price.

Dabrafenib for Treating Unresectable, Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of dabrafenib, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of dabrafenib for the treatment of unresectable, advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma in accordance with the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarizes the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) final decision in October 2014. The clinical evidence for dabrafenib was derived from an ongoing phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre clinical trial (BREAK-3) involving 230 patients randomized 2:1 to receive either dabrafenib or dacarbazine. A significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS) was reported in the dabrafenib arm compared with dacarbazine. Vemurafenib is considered a more appropriate comparator than is dacarbazine. The clinical evidence for vemurafenib was derived from a completed phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre clinical trial (BRIM-3) involving 675 patients randomized 1:1 to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine. A significant improvement in median PFS and OS was reported in the vemurafenib arm compared with dacarbazine. As there is no direct evidence comparing dabrafenib versus vemurafenib, the company presented an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that demonstrated no statistical differences between dabrafenib and vemurafenib for PFS or OS. The ERG expressed concerns with the ITC, mainly in relation to the validity of the assumptions underpinning the methodology; the ERG concluded this resulted in findings that are unlikely to be robust or reliable. Dabrafenib and vemurafenib are both available to patients treated by the National Health Service (NHS) in England via a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) in which the costs of the drugs are discounted. Using these discounted costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) generated by the company were £60,980 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and £11,046 per QALY gained for dabrafenib versus vemurafenib. The ERG considered the economic model structure developed by the company to derive the ICERs to be overly complex and based on unsubstantiated assumptions, most importantly in relation to the projection of OS. Applying the latest OS data from BREAK-3 to a less complex model structure increased the estimated ICER for dabrafenib compared with dacarbazine from £60,980 to £112,727 per QALY gained. Since the results from the ITC were considered by the ERG to be neither reliable nor robust, the ERG also considered a cost-effectiveness comparison to be inappropriate due to a lack of meaningful or reliable data. In spite of limitations in the data, the AC took the view that dabrafenib and vemurafenib were "likely" of similar clinical effectiveness. Since the overall costs of these two drugs were similar, the AC recommended the use of dabrafenib in patients with unresectable, advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma.