Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the era of vaccination and Omicron: An updated meta-analysis.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was approved to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive outpatients at high risk of progression to severe disease, based on a randomized trial in unvaccinated patients. Effectiveness in vaccinated patients and against Omicron has not yet been confirmed by clinical trial data, but a recent meta-analysis suggested good real-world effectiveness based on 12 studies. We updated this meta-analysis by searching Medline and Embase databases for studies assessing effectiveness of NR on mortality, hospitalization, composite outcome of hospitalization and/or death, and progression to severe disease, published between October 1, 2022 and May 22, 2023. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for vaccinated patients was performed. A total of 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR for the effect of NR on mortality, hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, and progression to severe disease were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.52), 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.51), 0.52 (CI: 0.45-0.61) and 0.54 (CI: 0.41-0.73), respectively. A subgroup analysis on vaccinated patients indicated lower effectiveness of NR on mortality (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.45-0.68), but similar effectiveness for hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, or progression to severe disease (RR: 0.52, 0.58, and 0.66, respectively). This updated meta-analysis robustly confirms the protective effects of NR on severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Survival of patients with unfavorable prognosis cutaneous melanoma with increased use of immunotherapy agents: a population-based study in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Although metastatic cutaneous melanoma is associated with an unfavorable prognosis, innovative therapies including immunomodulating agents and targeted therapies have shown survival benefits in clinical trials. We assessed the impact of the introduction of innovative drugs into clinical practice on the survival of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma during the period 2004-2017, in Belgium. The evolution of associated expenses was also analyzed. METHODS: This is a retrospective population-based study using data from the national Belgian Cancer Registry, compulsory health insurance, and administrative survival data. The immunomodulating drugs were ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, while targeted therapies included vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib. RESULTS: We did not identify a trend for improvement over time. Median survival (years) was 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1-1.8) in 2004-2008, 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) in 2009-2013, and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3-2.4) in 2014-2017, respectively. In contrast, survival improved in those with unknown primary tumor localization. In this group, median survival time was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.4-2.9) in the most recent period, while it was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7-1.3) in 2009-2013, and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6-1.2) in 2004-2008. The uptake of innovative drugs remained modest, with no drug being used by more than 30% of patients. Yearly expenditure was almost non-existent, and gradually increased, reaching several million euros in 2014-2017. CONCLUSION: Patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 showed no apparent improvement in survival. In contrast, increased survival was observed in the subgroup of patients with unknown primary tumor localization.

Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions.

AIM: To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry. METHODS: We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context. FINDINGS: Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

Belgian observational survival data (incidence years 2004-2017) and expenditure for innovative oncology drugs in twelve cancer indications.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency typically approve market access for cancer drugs based on surrogate end-points, which do not always translate into substantiated improvements in outcomes that matter the most to patients, i.e. survival and quality of life. These drugs often, also, have a high price tag. We assessed whether there was an increase in cancer drug expenditure for a broad selection of indications, and whether this correlates with increased overall survival. METHODS: This cohort study used Belgian Cancer Registry data from 125,692 patients (12 cancer indications, incidence period 2004-2017), which was linked to reimbursement and survival data. This reliably represents the Belgian situation. One-to-five year observed survival probability, median survival time, oncology drug expenditure and mean oncology drug cost per patient were reviewed. FINDINGS: In almost all indications, total expenditure and average treatment cost for oncology drugs increased over the years (2004-2017). In contrast, mixed findings are observed for the evolution in overall survival probability and median survival time. While an absolute improvement in the 3-year survival probability of about 10% is noticed in non-small-cell lung cancer and chronic myeloid leukaemia, improvements in about half of the other indications are limited or even absent. INTERPRETATION: The Belgian observational data indicate that assuming 'innovative' oncology drugs always add value in terms of improved survival is often unjustified. The literature also highlights the problem of using surrogate end-points, and the lack of comparative evidence showing an added value of oncology drugs for both survival and quality of life at market approval or during the post-marketing phase. Comparative studies should be conducted in the pre-marketing phase that are suitable for registration purposes, aid reimbursement decisions and support physicians and patients when making treatment decisions.

Survival in stage IV ovarian cancer with increased use of debulking surgery and bevacizumab.

OBJECTIVES: Advanced ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with a 5 year survival probability of <30%. Attempts to improve survival have focused on debulking surgery and systemic therapy. We assessed the evolution of treatment patterns and survival of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with specific attention to changes in survival after introducing bevacizumab. METHODS: Population based data from the Belgian Cancer Registry were coupled with administrative reimbursement data from the compulsory health insurance organizations and the national database where date of death is registered, based on the patient's unique national number. Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer stage IV diagnosed in 2004-17 were included. The proportion of patients who underwent debulking surgery and received bevacizumab was calculated per incidence year. Survival was compared for the three incidence periods (2004-08, 2009-13, 2014-17) and before and after the introduction of bevacizumab. RESULTS: 2034 patients with stage IV epitheial ovarian cancer were included. From 2012 onwards, uptake of bevacizumab increased, with 50% of patients with stage IV ovarian cancer diagnosed in 2017 receiving bevacizumab. The proportion of stage IV patients who underwent debulking surgery also increased over time, from 21.1% in 2004-08 to 50.4% and 45.4% in 2009-13 and 2014-17, respectively. The 3 year observed survival probability fluctuated between 27% and 42% without a trend over time. The increase in debulking surgery was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.98) but the introduction of bevacizumab was not (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03). For patients diagnosed in 2004, the mean cost per patient treated with oncological drugs was about €12 500, which doubled to about €25 000 for patients diagnosed in 2014 or later. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a rise in the use of debulking surgery and the introduction of bevacizumab into clinical practice, no improvement in 3 year survival probability was observed for patients with advanced ovarian cancer in Belgium.

Effect of anti-interleukin drugs in patients with COVID-19 and signs of cytokine release syndrome (COV-AID): a factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Infections with SARS-CoV-2 continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 blockade have been proposed as therapeutic strategies in COVID-19, but study outcomes have been conflicting. We sought to study whether blockade of the IL-6 or IL-1 pathway shortened the time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, hypoxia, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome across 16 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients had a proven diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms between 6 and 16 days, a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) of less than 350 mm Hg on room air or less than 280 mm Hg on supplemental oxygen, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome in their serum (either a single ferritin measurement of more than 2000 µg/L and immediately requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation, or a ferritin concentration of more than 1000 µg/L, which had been increasing over the previous 24 h, or lymphopenia below 800/mL with two of the following criteria: an increasing ferritin concentration of more than 700 µg/L, an increasing lactate dehydrogenase concentration of more than 300 international units per L, an increasing C-reactive protein concentration of more than 70 mg/L, or an increasing D-dimers concentration of more than 1000 ng/mL). The COV-AID trial has a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate IL-1 blockade versus no IL-1 blockade and IL-6 blockade versus no IL-6 blockade. Patients were randomly assigned by means of permuted block randomisation with varying block size and stratification by centre. In a first randomisation, patients were assigned to receive subcutaneous anakinra once daily (100 mg) for 28 days or until discharge, or to receive no IL-1 blockade (1:2). In a second randomisation step, patients were allocated to receive a single dose of siltuximab (11 mg/kg) intravenously, or a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously, or to receive no IL-6 blockade (1:1:1). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement, defined as time from randomisation to an increase of at least two points on a 6-category ordinal scale or to discharge from hospital alive. The primary and supportive efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04330638) and EudraCT (2020-001500-41) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 4, and Dec 6, 2020, 342 patients were randomly assigned to IL-1 blockade (n=112) or no IL-1 blockade (n=230) and simultaneously randomly assigned to IL-6 blockade (n=227; 114 for tocilizumab and 113 for siltuximab) or no IL-6 blockade (n=115). Most patients were male (265 [77%] of 342), median age was 65 years (IQR 54-73), and median Systematic Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at randomisation was 3 (2-4). All 342 patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. The estimated median time to clinical improvement was 12 days (95% CI 10-16) in the IL-1 blockade group versus 12 days (10-15) in the no IL-1 blockade group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·73-1·21]). For the IL-6 blockade group, the estimated median time to clinical improvement was 11 days (95% CI 10-16) versus 12 days (11-16) in the no IL-6 blockade group (HR 1·00 [0·78-1·29]). 55 patients died during the study, but no evidence for differences in mortality between treatment groups was found. The incidence of serious adverse events and serious infections was similar across study groups. INTERPRETATION: Drugs targeting IL-1 or IL-6 did not shorten the time to clinical improvement in this sample of patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, low SOFA score, and low baseline mortality risk. FUNDING: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center and VIB Grand Challenges program.

Infectious diseases epidemiology, quantitative methodology, and clinical research in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspective from a European country.

Starting from historic reflections, the current SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19 pandemic is examined from various perspectives, in terms of what it implies for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the modeling and monitoring of the epidemic, the development of early-warning systems, the study of mortality, prevalence estimation, diagnostic and serological testing, vaccine development, and ultimately clinical trials. Emphasis is placed on how the pandemic had led to unprecedented speed in methodological and clinical development, the pitfalls thereof, but also the opportunities that it engenders for national and international collaboration, and how it has simplified and sped up procedures. We also study the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials in other indications. We note that it has placed biostatistics, epidemiology, virology, infectiology, and vaccinology, and related fields in the spotlight in an unprecedented way, implying great opportunities, but also the need to communicate effectively, often amidst controversy.

Closing the cycle of innovation in healthcare in Europe.

Pragmatic or practice-oriented comparative effectiveness trials may be conducted to fill the evidence gaps that are revealed after the private sector has performed the trials needed for bringing their product to the market. A tool of increasing importance to identify such evidence gaps is resulting from health technology assessments (HTA) whereby the data derived from clinical research are examined in a systematic manner with reference to effect, safety, as well as additional parameters. Practice-oriented trials are informative for healthcare decision makers, practice-changing and may even be cost-saving for the healthcare payers. There are however only a limited number of funding sources for such trials. Public and private healthcare payers should stimulate the conduct of practice-oriented trials in their effort to maximize patient benefit within the limitation of the available resources. Pragmatic randomized trials can be performed at low cost when based on existing coded electronic health records and as well health registries. Public health decision makers are increasingly taking advantage of results from health technology assessments to support priority setting. In accordance with this it would appear reasonable that decision makers should get more involved in priority setting and funding also in the field of clinical research in order to provide further evidence needed for assessments, reassessments, and subsequent qualified decisions and resource allocations in health care. A closer dialogue and collaboration between the clinical research and HTA communities would facilitate a more efficient utilization of such opportunities.

Budgeting of non-commercial clinical trials: development of a budget tool by a public funding agency.

BACKGROUND: Investigator-led multicentre randomised trials are essential to generate evidence on the optimal use of medical interventions. These non-commercial trials are often hampered by underfunding, which may lead to difficulties in gathering a team with the necessary expertise, a delayed trial start, slow recruitment and even early trial discontinuation. As a new public funder of pragmatic clinical trials, the KCE Trials programme was committed to correctly pay all trial activities in order to assure timely delivery of high-quality trial results. As no appropriate trial budget tool was readily publicly available that took into account the costs for the sponsor as well as the costs for participating sites, we developed a tool to make the budgeting of a clinical trial efficient, transparent and fair across applicants. METHODS: All trial-related activities of the sponsor and sites were categorised, and cost drivers were identified. All elements were included in a spreadsheet tool allowing the sponsor team to calculate in detail the various activities of a clinical trial and to appreciate the budget impact of specific cost drivers, e.g. a delay in recruitment. Hourly fees by role were adapted from published data. Fixed amounts per activity were developed when appropriate. RESULTS: This publicly available tool has already been used for 17 trials funded since the start of the KCE Trials programme in 2016, and it continues to be used and improved. This budget tool is used together with additional risk-reducing measures such as a multistep selection process with advance payments, a recruitment feasibility check by sponsor and funder, a close monitoring of study progress and a milestone-based payment schedule with the last payment made when the manuscript is submitted. CONCLUSIONS: The budget tool helps the KCE Trials programme to answer relevant research questions in a timely way, within budget and with high quality, a necessary condition to achieve impact of this programme for patients, clinical practice and healthcare payers.

Introduction of high-risk medical devices: national measures that can be taken under the current European legislation to put the patient interest central.

INTRODUCTION: High-risk medical devices may not always provide a therapeutic added value to patients. In Europe, no proof of efficacy is required to receive a CE label, making it difficult for policymakers to decide on reimbursement of (often expensive) high-risk medical devices. We explore, within the framework of the European legislation, the possibilities at a national level for a guided introduction of such devices. Areas covered: HTA and legal experts worked in close collaboration with medical specialists and government representatives making a legal analysis of what is possible under the (revised) European and national legislation. Expert commentary: At national level, measures for a better evidence-based introduction can be taken that are not in contradiction with the European regulation. From a legal point of view, all restrictive measures must be justified, necessary and proportional. Several measures are possible, a.o. making use of reference centres, applying the IDEAL framework or the 6-step plan set up by the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists. In conclusion, within the framework of the (revised) European legislation, measures at national level can be taken to temporarily restrict and follow up the use of high-risk medical devices with a greater focus on the therapeutic added value for the patients.

Publicly funded practice-oriented clinical trials: of importance for healthcare payers.

AIM: Many questions of relevance to patients/society are not answered by industry-sponsored clinical trials. We consider whether there are benefits to governments in funding practice-oriented clinical trials. METHODOLOGY: A literature search including publications on institutions' websites was performed and supplemented with information gathered from (inter)national stakeholders. RESULTS: Areas were identified where public funding of clinical trials is of importance for society, such as head-to-head comparisons or medical areas where companies have no motivation to invest. The available literature suggests publicly funded research programs could provide a positive return on investment. The main hurdles (e.g., sufficient funding and absence of equipoise) and success factors (e.g., selection of research questions and research infrastructure) for the successful conduct of publicly funded trials were identified. CONCLUSION: Governments should see public funding of pragmatic practice-oriented clinical trials as a good opportunity to improve the selection and quality of treatments and stimulate efficient use of limited resources.

Proton Therapy in Children: A Systematic Review of Clinical Effectiveness in 15 Pediatric Cancers.

Because it spares many normal tissues and reduces the integral dose, proton therapy (PT) is the preferred tumor irradiation technique for treating childhood cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of PT in children has been reported in the scientific literature. A systematic search for clinical outcome studies on PT published between 2007 and 2015 was performed in Medline (through OVID), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Twenty-three primary studies were identified, including approximately 650 patients overall. The median/mean follow-up times were limited (range, 19-91 months). None of the studies were randomized, 2 were comparative, and 20 were retrospective. Most suffered from serious methodologic limitations, yielding a very low level of clinical evidence for the outcomes in all indications. For example, for retinoblastoma, very low-level evidence was found that PT might decrease the incidence of second malignancies. For chondrosarcoma, chordoma, craniopharyngioma, ependymoma, esthesioneuroblastoma, Ewing sarcoma, central nervous system germinoma, glioma, medulloblastoma, osteosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, there was insufficient evidence to either support or refute PT in children. For pelvic sarcoma (ie, nonrhabdomyosarcoma and non-Ewing sarcoma), pineal parenchymal tumor, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, and "adult-type" soft tissue sarcoma, no studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Although there is no doubt that PT reduces the radiation dose to normal tissues and organs, to date the critical clinical data on the long-term effectiveness and harm associated with the use of PT in the 15 pediatric cancers under investigation are lacking. High-quality clinical research in this area is needed.

The importance of test accuracy in economic evaluations of companion diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of companion diagnostics often fail to include the impact that tests have on the overall economic value of test-drug combinations.  METHODS: To illustrate the importance of test accuracy on the cost-effectiveness of companion diagnostics by means of examples. Data were extracted from the literature. RESULTS: The accuracy of a test and in particularly its specificity, is often more influential on the overall cost-effectiveness results than the price of the test. Specificity becomes more crucial when prevalence of the biomarker is low. Multiple, simultaneous testing faces specific challenges regarding its overall specificity. CONCLUSION: This article opens a discussion on some fundamental points linked to economic evaluations of test-therapy combinations.

Contingent non-invasive prenatal testing: an opportunity to improve non-genetic aspects of fetal aneuploidy screening.

BACKGROUND: Several countries today struggle with suboptimal performances in many aspects of the fetal aneuploidy screening process and consider introducing non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT) as a solution. In this study, costs and benefits of different scenarios for contingent NIPT screening in Belgium are evaluated with respect to partial redistribution of the national screening budget into quality improving measures for those screening activities that will be maintained when full NIPT screening is implemented. METHODS: Data from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance and the Study Centre for Perinatal Epidemiology were used in modeled calculations of medical and economic impact of NIPT after prior conventional screening (1) at thresholds 1:300 and 1:600, and (2) at current and improved screening sensitivity. RESULTS: Contingent NIPT screening under current screening conditions would maintain today's 7.9(0)/000 live birth prevalence of Down syndrome (LBPD) at an 11% reduction of overall short-term costs. Lowering the screening threshold to 1:600 or increasing sensitivity by 10% would reduce LBPD to 7(0)/000 at a maximum 3% increase of overall short-term costs. CONCLUSION: Today, in Belgium and in many other countries, full NIPT screening is considered too expensive for immediate introduction into the national fetal aneuploidy screening program. Contingent NIPT screening is both clinically and economically beneficial. A temporary contingent NIPT protocol allows for reinvesting economic savings into optimization of those screening aspects, which are to be maintained in parallel to full NIPT screening.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer: how much does it really cost?

INTRODUCTION: Despite the lack of randomized evidence, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being accepted as superior to conventional radiotherapy for patients with T1-2N0 non-small-cell lung cancer in the periphery of the lung and unfit or unwilling to undergo surgery. To introduce SBRT in a system of coverage with evidence development, a correct financing had to be determined. METHODS: A time-driven activity-based costing model for radiotherapy was developed. Resource cost calculation of all radiotherapy treatments, standard and innovative, was conducted in 10 Belgian radiotherapy centers in the second half of 2012. RESULTS: The average cost of lung SBRT across the 10 centers (6221&OV0556;) is in the range of the average costs of standard fractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy (5919&OV0556;) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7379&OV0556;) for lung cancer. Hypofractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy schemes are less costly (3993&OV0556; respectively 4730&OV0556;). The SBRT cost increases with the number of fractions and is highly dependent of personnel and equipment use. SBRT cost varies more by centre than conventional radiotherapy cost, reflecting different technologies, stages in the learning curve and a lack of clear guidance in this field. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing of radiotherapy is feasible in a multicentre setup, resulting in real-life resource costs that can form the basis for correct reimbursement schemes, supporting an early yet controlled introduction of innovative radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice.

Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis.

BACKGROUND: The first- and second-trimester screening for trisomy 21 (T21) are reimbursed for all pregnant women in Belgium. Using a cut-off risk of 1:300 for T21, about 5% of all pregnant women are referred for definitive prenatal diagnosis using an invasive test, at a sensitivity of (only) 72.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) are over 99% but come at a cost of €460 (£373) per test. The objective is to estimate the consequences of introducing NIPT for the detection of T21. METHODS: A cost-consequences analysis was performed presenting the impact on benefits, harms and costs. Context-specific real-world information was available to set up a model reflecting the current screening situation in Belgium. This model was used to construct the second and first line NIPT screening scenarios applying information from the literature on NIPT's test accuracy. RESULTS: Introducing NIPT in the first or second line reduces harm by decreasing the number of procedure-related miscarriages after invasive testing. In contrast with NIPT in the second line, offering NIPT in the first line additionally will miss fewer cases of T21 due to less false-negative test results. The introduction of NIPT in the second line results in cost savings, which is not true for NIPT at the current price in the first line. If NIPT is offered to all pregnant women, the price should be lowered to about €150 to keep the screening cost per T21 diagnosis constant. CONCLUSIONS: In Belgium, the introduction and reimbursement of NIPT as a second line triage test significantly reduces procedure-related miscarriages without increasing the short-term screening costs. Offering and reimbursing NIPT in the first line to all pregnant women is preferred in the long term, as it would, in addition, miss fewer cases of T21. However, taking into account the government's limited resources for universal reimbursement, the price of NIPT should first be lowered substantially before this can be realised.