Health Care Costs After Genome-Wide Sequencing for Children With Rare Diseases in England and Canada.

Importance: Etiologic diagnoses for rare diseases can involve a diagnostic odyssey, with repeated health care interactions and inconclusive diagnostics. Prior studies reported cost savings associated with genome-wide sequencing (GWS) compared with cytogenetic or molecular testing through rapid genetic diagnosis, but there is limited evidence on whether diagnosis from GWS is associated with reduced health care costs. Objective: To measure changes in health care costs after diagnosis from GWS for Canadian and English children with suspected rare diseases. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a quasiexperimental retrospective analysis across 3 distinct English and Canadian cohorts, completed in 2023. Mixed-effects generalized linear regression was used to estimate associations between GWS and costs in the 2 years before and after GWS. Difference-in-differences regression was used to estimate associations of genetic diagnosis and costs. Costs are in 2019 US dollars. GWS was conducted in a research setting (Genomics England 100 000 Genomes Project [100KGP] and Clinical Assessment of the Utility of Sequencing and Evaluation as a Service [CAUSES] Research Clinic) or clinical outpatient setting (publicly reimbursed GWS in British Columbia [BC], Canada). Participants were children with developmental disorders, seizure disorders, or both undergoing GWS between 2014 and 2019. Data were analyzed from April 2021 to September 2023. Exposures: GWS and genetic diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual health care costs and diagnostic costs per child. Results: Study cohorts included 7775 patients in 100KGP, among whom 788 children had epilepsy (mean [SD] age at GWS, 11.6 [11.1] years; 400 female [50.8%]) and 6987 children had an intellectual disability (mean [SD] age at GWS, 8.2 [8.4] years; 2750 female [39.4%]); 77 patients in CAUSES (mean [SD] age at GWS, 8.5 [4.4] years; 33 female [42.9%]); and 118 publicly reimbursed GWS recipients from BC (mean [SD] age at GWS, 5.5 [5.2] years; 58 female [49.2%]). GWS diagnostic yield was 143 children (18.1%) for those with epilepsy and 1323 children (18.9%) for those with an intellectual disability in 100KGP, 47 children (39.8%) in the BC publicly reimbursed setting, and 42 children (54.5%) in CAUSES. Mean annual per-patient spending over the study period was $5283 (95% CI, $5121-$5427) for epilepsy and $3373 (95% CI, $3322-$3424) for intellectual disability in the 100KGP, $724 (95% CI, $563-$886) in CAUSES, and $1573 (95% CI, $1372-$1773) in the BC reimbursed setting. Receiving a genetic diagnosis from GWS was not associated with changed costs in any cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, receiving a genetic diagnosis was not associated with cost savings. This finding suggests that patient benefit and cost-effectiveness should instead drive GWS implementation.

Using orthopaedic health care resources efficiently: A cost analysis of day surgery for unicompartmental knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Day surgery for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) could potentially reduce hospital costs. We aimed to measure the impact of introducing a day surgery UKR pathway on mean length of stay (LOS) and costs for the UK NHS, compared to an accelerated inpatient pathway. Secondly, the study aimed to compare the magnitude of costs using three costing approaches: top-down costing; simple micro-costing; and real-world costing. METHODS: We conducted an observational, before-and-after study of 2,111 UKR patients at one NHS hospital: 1,094 patients followed the day surgery pathway between September 2017 and February 2020; and 1,017 patients followed the accelerated inpatient pathway between September 2013 and February 2016. Top-down costs were estimated using Average NHS Costs. Simple micro-costing used the cost per bed-day. Real-world costs for this centre were estimated by costing actual changes in staffing levels. RESULTS: 532 (48.5%) patients in the day surgery pathway were discharged on the day of surgery compared with 36 (3.5%) patients in the accelerated inpatient pathway. The day surgery pathway reduced the mean LOS by 2.2 (95% CI: 1.81, 2.53) nights and was associated with an 18% decrease in Average NHS Costs (p < 0.001). Mean savings were £1,429 per patient with the Average NHS Costs approach, £905 per patient with the micro-costing approach, and £577 per patient with the "real-world" costing approach. Overall, moving NHS UKR surgeries to a day surgery pathway could save the NHS £8,659,740 per year. CONCLUSION: Day surgery for UKR could produce substantial cost savings for hospitals and the NHS.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (STAR): a pivotal, randomised, double-masked, sham-controlled device trial.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a leading cause of blindness. The first-line therapy is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents delivered by intravitreal injection. Ionising radiation mitigates key pathogenic processes underlying nAMD, and therefore has therapeutic potential. STAR aimed to assess whether stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) reduces the number of anti-VEGF injections required, without sacrificing visual acuity. METHODS: This pivotal, randomised, double-masked, sham-controlled trial enrolled participants with pretreated chronic active nAMD from 30 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to 16-Gray (Gy) SRT delivered using a robotically controlled device or sham SRT, stratified by treatment centre. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older and had chronic active nAMD, with at least three previous anti-VEGF injections, including at least one in the last 4 months. Participants and all trial and image reading centre staff were masked to treatment allocation, except one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was the number of intravitreal ranibizumab injections required over 2 years, tested for superiority (fewer injections). The main secondary outcome was Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity at two years, tested for non-inferiority (five-letter margin). The primary analysis used the intention-to-treat principle, and safety was analysed per-protocol on participants with available data. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02243878) and is closed for recruitment. FINDINGS: 411 participants enrolled between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 27, 2019, and 274 were randomly allocated to the 16-Gy SRT group and 137 to the sham SRT group. 240 (58%) of all participants were female, and 171 (42%) of all participants were male. 241 participants in the 16-Gy SRT group and 118 participants in the sham group were included in the final analysis, and 409 patients were treated and formed the safety population, of whom two patients allocated to sham treatment erroneously received 16-Gy SRT. The SRT group received a mean of 10·7 injections (SD 6·3) over 2 years versus 13·3 injections (5·8) with sham, a reduction of 2·9 injections after adjusting for treatment centre (95% CI -4·2 to -1·6, p<0·0001). The SRT group best-corrected visual acuity change was non-inferior to sham (adjusted mean letter loss difference between groups, -1·7 letters [95% CI -4·2 to 0·8]). Adverse event rates were similar across groups, but reading centre-detected microvascular abnormalities occurred in 77 SRT-treated eyes (35%) and 13 (12%) sham-treated eyes. Overall, eyes with microvascular abnormalities tended to have better best-corrected visual acuity than those without. Fewer ranibizumab injections offset the cost of SRT, saving a mean of £565 per participant (95% CI -332 to 1483). INTERPRETATION: SRT can reduce ranibizumab treatment burden without compromising vision. FUNDING: Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.

Overcoming challenges in the economic evaluation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use.

Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, reducing our ability to treat infections and threatening to undermine modern health care. Optimising antibiotic use is a key element in tackling the problem. Traditional economic evaluation methods do not capture many of the benefits from improved antibiotic use and the potential impact on resistance. Not capturing these benefits is a major obstacle to optimising antibiotic use, as it fails to incentivise the development and use of interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and preserve their effectiveness (stewardship interventions). Estimates of the benefits of improving antibiotic use involve considerable uncertainty as they depend on the evolution of resistance and associated health outcomes and costs. Here we discuss how economic evaluation methods might be adapted, in the face of such uncertainties. We propose a threshold-based approach that estimates the minimum resistance-related costs that would need to be averted by an intervention to make it cost-effective. If it is probable that without the intervention costs will exceed the threshold then the intervention should be deemed cost-effective.

Paving the path for implementation of clinical genomic sequencing globally: Are we ready?

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.

Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness-a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ASTUTE trial).

INTRODUCTION: Adalimumab is an effective treatment for autoimmune non-infectious uveitis (ANIU), but it is currently only funded for a minority of patients with ANIU in the UK as it is restricted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Ophthalmologists believe that adalimumab may be effective in a wider range of patients. The Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (ASTUTE) trial will recruit patients with ANIU who do and do not meet funding criteria and will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab versus placebo as an add-on therapy to standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ASTUTE trial is a multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a 16-week treatment run-in (TRI). At the end of the TRI, only responders will be randomised (1:1) to 40 mg adalimumab or placebo (both are the study investigational medicinal product) self-administered fortnightly by subcutaneous injection. The target sample size is 174 randomised participants. The primary outcome is time to treatment failure (TF), a composite of signs indicative of active ANIU. Secondary outcomes include individual TF components, retinal morphology, adverse events, health-related quality of life, patient-reported side effects and visual function, best-corrected visual acuity, employment status and resource use. In the event of TF, open-label drug treatment will be restarted as per TRI for 16 weeks, and if a participant responds again, allocation will be switched without unmasking and treatment with investigational medicinal product restarted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval from South Central - Oxford B REC in June 2020. The findings will be presented at international meetings, by peer-reviewed publications and through patient organisations and newsletters to patients, where available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN31474800. Registered 14 April 2020.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia.

PURPOSE: Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas.

Cost-effectiveness of genetic-based screening strategies for maturity-onset diabetes of the young.

Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is often misdiagnosed as Type I or II diabetes. This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MODY screening strategies in Hungary, which included a recent genetic test compared with no routine screening for MODY. A simulation model that combined a decision tree and an individual-level Markov model was constructed to assess the costs per quality-adjusted life year of screening strategies. Stratifying patients based on age and insulin treatment followed by a risk assessment questionnaire, a laboratory test and genetic testing was the most cost-effective strategy, saving EUR 12 and generating 0.0047 quality-adjusted life years gained per screened patient. This screening strategy could be considered for reimbursement, especially in countries with limited resources.

Lessons learned from the application of the HEcoPerMed guidance to three modeling case studies.

Background: The HEcoPerMed consortium developed a methodological guidance for the harmonization and improvement of economic evaluations in personalized medicine. Materials & methods: In three therapeutic areas, health economic models were developed to scrutinize the recommendations of the guidance. Results: Altogether, 20 of the 23 recommendations of the guidance were addressed by the models. Seven recommendations were applied in all studies, six in two of the studies and seven in one of the studies. Recommendations with an essential role on the final conclusions of the analyses were identified in each study. Conclusion: The guidance was found to be best used as a tool to identify and prioritize issues, verify solutions and justify decisions during the economic analysis of personalized interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative NTRK testing strategies in cancer patients followed by histology-independent therapy with entrectinib: an analysis of three European countries.

Aim: To explore variations in the cost-effectiveness of entrectinib across different testing strategies and settings. Methods: Four testing strategies where adult cancer patients received entrectinib if they tested positive for NTRK gene fusions compared with 'no testing' and standard of care (SoC) for all patients were evaluated. Results: Immunohistochemistry for all patients followed by RNA-based next-generation sequencing after a positive result was the optimal strategy in all included countries. However, the incremental net monetary benefit compared with SoC was negative in all countries, ranging between international euros (int€) -206 and -404. In a subgroup analysis with only NTRK-positive patients, the incremental net monetary benefit was int€ 8405 in England, int€ -53,088 in Hungary and int€ 54,372 in The Netherlands. Conclusion: Using the cost-effectiveness thresholds recommended by national guidelines, none of the testing strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing. The implementation of entrectinib is unlikely to become cost-effective in Hungary, due to the large cost difference between the entrectinib and SoC arms, while there might be more potential in England and The Netherlands.

Histology-independent pharmaceuticals are a new phenomenon in cancer care. Most chemotherapies are prescribed based on the tumor's (primary) location, while histology-independent therapies are prescribed based on genetic markers in the tumor DNA. In this study, the added value of the histology-independent treatment entrectinib, which is aimed at cancer patients with so-called NTRK gene fusions, was investigated. Because these patients must be identified before they can be given entrectinib, various strategies for diagnostic testing were considered. An economic model was programmed to gain insight into the costs and health outcomes associated with the different testing strategies. The same analysis was done for three different countries (England, Hungary and The Netherlands) using local data. In all three countries, the health gains from receiving entrectinib may be large for patients with NTRK gene fusions. However, treatment with entrectinib was also much more expensive than standard-care treatment, especially in Hungary. In each of the three countries, all evaluated testing strategies were found to offer a negative net benefit to society (i.e., a net loss). This may be partially explained by the fact that NTRK gene fusions are rare, meaning that a large group of cancer patients has to receive (costly) testing while, subsequently, only a few patients enjoy the benefit of switching to a treatment that is more effective for them (i.e., entrectinib). Nonetheless, in England and Hungary, even if the most accurate test was provided for free, the net benefit to society of implementing entrectinib remained negative. Further changes, such as a reduction in the price of entrectinib, may therefore be needed.

Cost-effectiveness of extended DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in the UK.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ToxNav©, a multivariant genetic test, to screen for DPYD followed by personalized chemotherapy dosing for metastatic breast cancer in the UK compared with no testing followed by standard dose, standard of care. In the main analysis, ToxNav was dominant over standard of care, producing 0.19 additional quality-adjusted life years and savings of £78,000 per patient over a lifetime. The mean additional quality-adjusted life years per person from 1000 simulations was 0.23 savings (95% CI: 0.22-0.24) at £99,000 (95% CI: £95-102,000). Varying input parameters independently by range of 20% was unlikely to change the results in the main analysis. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed ~97% probability of the ToxNav strategy to be dominant.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of screening strategies for maturity-onset diabetes of the young in three European countries.

Background: Correct diagnosis of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY), which is often misdiagnosed as Type 1 or 2 diabetes, is important for providing appropriate treatment. Materials & Methods: A diabetes model was adapted to Hungary, the Netherlands, and the UK to analyse the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of different screening strategies for MODY with 20 years time horizon. Results: Compared with no screening, screening with the MODY calculator then genetic testing is considered cost-effective with respect to each country's willingness to pay threshold. The addition of autoantibody testing dominated the no screening strategy. The budget impact of the strategies ranges between 0.001 and 0.025% of annual public healthcare spending. Conclusion: The analysed strategies are considered good value for money with potential cost savings in the long term.

Financial incentives to promote personalized medicine in Europe: an overview and guidance for implementation.

The implementation of adequate financing and reimbursement of personalized medicine (PM) in Europe is still turbulent. The views and experience of stakeholders about barriers in financing and reimbursing PM and potential solutions were elicited and supplemented with literature findings to draft a set of recommendations. Key recommendations to overcome the barriers for adequately financing and reimbursing PM in different healthcare systems in Europe included the provision of legal foundations and establishment of large pan-European databases, use of financial-based agreements and regulation of transparency of prices and reimbursement, and creating a business-friendly environment and attractive market for innovation. The recommendations could be used by health authorities for designing a sequence of policy steps to ensure the timely access to beneficial PM.

Budget impact and transferability of cost-effectiveness of DPYD testing in metastatic breast cancer in three health systems.

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of introducing extended DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients in the UK, The Netherlands and Hungary were examined. DPYD testing with ToxNav© was cost-effective in all three countries. In the UK and The Netherlands, the ToxNav strategy led to more quality-adjusted life years and fewer costs to the health systems compared with no genetic testing and standard dosing of capecitabine/5-fluorouracil. In Hungary, the ToxNav strategy produced more quality-adjusted life years at a higher cost compared with no testing and standard dose. The ToxNav strategy was found to offer budget savings in the UK and in The Netherlands, while in Hungary it resulted in additional budget costs.

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies.

Background: Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified. Objectives: The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy. Design: The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials. Setting: The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017. Participants: Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome. Data sources: Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. Interventions: Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195). Conclusions: This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy. Limitations: The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted. Future work: Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People who have a heart attack are treated with a stent to open up the blocked artery that caused the heart attack, with surgery to bypass the blocked artery or with medication only. Whatever the treatment, they are prescribed one or more antiplatelet drugs, either aspirin only or aspirin and an additional antiplatelet (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor), for 12 months after the heart attack. Antiplatelets are given to prevent another heart attack, but increase the risk of bleeding. We used a large general practice database and a database describing patients' attendances and admissions to hospital to determine how many people bleed with different antiplatelet combinations. We found that, overall, up to 1 in 10 people taking antiplatelets (rising to 2 in 10 if also taking an anticoagulant such as warfarin or dabigatran) reported a bleed. Among patients treated with surgery or medication only, we compared aspirin only (which is a less potent therapy) with aspirin and clopidogrel (a more potent therapy). Among patients treated with stents, we compared aspirin and clopidogrel (less potent therapy) with aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor (more potent therapy). In all three populations, the more potent therapy increased the risk of bleeding by about one and a half times, but this was not offset by a reduced risk of having a subsequent heart attack. This may be explained by low adherence to the medication: between one-third and almost half of all patients did not adhere to their regimen, and non-adherence was generally higher among patients taking a more potent therapy. It may also be explained by bias inherent in the study, for example if the groups prescribed different antiplatelet regimens had different risks of having another heart attack. Nevertheless, the results show that doctors should be cautious about prescribing more potent antiplatelet therapy because it may increase serious bleeds without necessarily reducing the number of heart attacks.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treating Patients With NTRK-Positive Cancer With the Histology-Independent Therapy Entrectinib.

OBJECTIVES: This study tackles several challenges of evaluating histology-independent treatments using entrectinib as an example. Histology-independent treatments are provided based on genetic marker(s) of tumors, regardless of the tumor type. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of testing all patients for NTRK fusions and treating the positive cases with entrectinib compared with no testing and standard of care (SoC) for all patients. METHODS: The health economic model consisted of a decision tree reflecting the NTRK testing phase followed by a microsimulation model reflecting treatment with either entrectinib or SoC. Efficacy of entrectinib was based on data from basket trials, whereas historical data from NTRK-negative patients were corrected for the prognostic value of NTRK fusions to model SoC. RESULTS: "Testing" (testing for NTRK fusions, with subsequent entrectinib treatment in NTRK-positive patients and SoC in NTRK-negative patients) had higher per-patient quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs than "No testing" (SoC for all patients), with a difference of 0.0043 and €732, respectively. This corresponded to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €169 957/QALY and, using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000/QALY, an incremental net monetary benefit of -€388. When excluding the costs of genetic testing for NTRK fusions, the ICER was reduced to €36 290/QALY and the incremental net monetary benefit increased to €188. CONCLUSIONS: When treatment requires the identification of a genetic marker, the associated costs and effects need to be accounted for. Because of the low prevalence of NTRK fusions, the number needed-to-test to identify patients eligible for entrectinib is large. Excluding the testing phase reduces the ICER substantially.

Antibiotic review kit for hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review. METHODS: We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243. FINDINGS: 58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality. INTERPRETATION: The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1. LIMITATIONS: Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population. CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a common cause of cancer death worldwide. If the disease is caught early, the part of the lung containing the tumour can be removed in an operation called a lobectomy. The operation can be carried out through a large cut so that the surgeon has a full view of the lung, which is called open surgery, or using several small cuts and a camera, which is called video-assisted thoracoscopic (keyhole) surgery. It is thought that, as keyhole surgery is less invasive, patients recover quicker. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no high-quality research studies that are applicable to UK practice to support this. This study was conducted so that it could be determined, based on high-quality evidence, which operation provides the best treatment and recovery for patients. WHO PARTICIPATED?: Five hundred and three adults referred for lobectomy for known or suspected lung cancer from nine hospitals in the UK. WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Participants were randomly allocated to either receive keyhole or open surgery. Participants were followed up for 12 months. We collected information on further treatment, hospital visits, safety information and disease progression over this period. Participants were also asked to complete questionnaires about their health and recovery. WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: For patients with early-stage lung cancer who underwent a lobectomy, keyhole surgery led to less pain, less time in hospital and better quality of life than open surgery, without having a detrimental effect on cancer progression or survival. Keyhole surgery was found to be cost-effective and to provide excellent value for money for the NHS.