Identifying the Optimum Strategy for Identifying Adults and Children With Celiac Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) is thought to affect around 1% of people in the United Kingdom, but only approximately 30% are diagnosed. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies for identifying adults and children with CD in terms of who to test and which tests to use. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were used to describe testing strategies and model long-term consequences of CD. The analysis compared a selection of pre-test probabilities of CD above which patients should be screened, as well as the use of different serological tests, with or without genetic testing. Value of information analysis was used to prioritize parameters for future research. RESULTS: Using serological testing alone in adults, immunoglobulin A (IgA) tissue transglutaminase (tTG) at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening) was most cost-effective. If combining serological testing with genetic testing, human leukocyte antigen combined with IgA tTG at a 5% pre-test probability was most cost-effective. In children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leukocyte antigen plus IgA tTG. Value of information analysis highlighted the probability of late diagnosis of CD and the accuracy of serological tests as important parameters. The analysis also suggested prioritizing research in adult women over adult men or children. CONCLUSIONS: For adults, these cost-effectiveness results suggest UK National Screening Committee Criteria for population-based screening for CD should be explored. Substantial uncertainty in the results indicate a high value in conducting further research.

The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK.

BACKGROUND: There has been growing interest in the UK and internationally of risk-stratified breast screening whereby individualised risk assessment may inform screening frequency, starting age, screening instrument used, or even decisions not to screen. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of eight proposals for risk-stratified screening regimens compared to both the current UK screening programme and no national screening. METHODS: A person-level microsimulation model was developed to estimate health-related quality of life, cancer survival and NHS costs over the lifetime of the female population eligible for screening in the UK. RESULTS: Compared with both the current screening programme and no screening, risk-stratified regimens generated additional costs and QALYs, and had a larger net health benefit. The likelihood of the current screening programme being the optimal scenario was less than 1%. No screening amongst the lowest risk group, and triannual, biennial and annual screening amongst the three higher risk groups was the optimal screening strategy from those evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: We found that risk-stratified breast cancer screening has the potential to be beneficial for women at the population level, but the net health benefit will depend on the particular risk-based strategy.

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care. DESIGN: (1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives. DATA SOURCES: For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used. REVIEW METHODS: For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed. RESULTS: People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents (n = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research. LIMITATIONS: The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia). FUTURE WORK: Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766. 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. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Around 1 in 100 people in the UK has coeliac disease. It develops when the immune system attacks the lining of the gut after eating gluten. It is thought that only one in three people with coeliac disease is currently diagnosed. Without treatment, people with coeliac disease are at an increased risk of anaemia, osteoporosis and cancer. Treatment is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Diagnosing coeliac disease is difficult. Some people have minimal or non-specific symptoms, such as pain, indigestion or bloating, so knowing who to test is tricky. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to establish who should be tested for coeliac disease, what tests should be used and whether or not invasive testing (a gut biopsy) is necessary for everyone. We looked at existing studies and data from general practices, and conducted an online survey, and brought everything together in an economic (cost) analysis. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Using individual symptoms is not helpful to identify people who may have coeliac disease. People with coeliac disease are more likely to have a combination of symptoms. People with anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, thyroid disorders, immunoglobulin A deficiency, Down syndrome, Turner syndrome or a family history of coeliac disease are more likely to have coeliac disease and should be offered tests. Common blood tests for coeliac disease are very accurate, particularly when used in combination with genetic testing. Blood tests alone can be used for diagnosis for some people. Others will need a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Whether or not this is needed depends on their risk of coeliac disease: whether or not they have symptoms and whether or not they have a condition that puts them at higher risk. Shared decision-making is important for individuals considering an invasive test, depending on how certain they want to be about their diagnosis before starting a gluten-free diet.

How can we decide a fair allocation of healthcare resources during a pandemic?

Whenever the government makes medical resource allocation choices, there will be opportunity costs associated with those choices: some patients will have treatment and live longer, while a different group of patients will die prematurely. Because of this, we have to make sure that the benefits we get from investing in treatment A are large enough to justify the benefits forgone from not investing in the next best alternative, treatment B. There has been an increase in spending and reallocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic that may have been warranted given the urgency of the situation. However, these actions do not bypass the opportunity cost principle although they can appear to in the short term, since spending increases cannot continue indefinitely and there are patient groups who lose out when resources are redirected to pandemic services. Therefore, policy-makers must consider who bears the cost of the displaced healthcare resources. Failure to do so runs a risk of reducing overall population health while disproportionally worsening health in socially disadvantaged groups. We give the example of ethnic minorities in England who already had the worst health and, due to structural injustices, were hardest hit by the pandemic and may stand to lose the most when services are reallocated to meet the resource demands of the crisis. How can we prevent this form of health inequity? Our proposal is forward-looking: we suggest that the government should invest our resources wisely while taking issues of equity into account-that is, introduce cost-equity analysis.

An Account of Earned Forgiveness through Apology.

I start by presenting an intuitively appealing account of forgiveness, 'the insult account', which nicely explains the cycle from wrongdoing to forgiveness. We need to respond to wrongdoing by blaming our offenders because they insult us with their actions (Murphy 1988; Hieronymi Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXII(3), 529-55, 2001; Hampton 1988a, b). How can wrongdoing be overcome? Either by the retraction of the insult or by taking necessary steps to correct for the wrong done. Once the insult has been retracted, usually by apology or remorse, forgiveness can come about. Martin The Journal of Philosophy, 107(10), 534-53, (2010) has recently criticized this promising account of forgiveness. My aim here is to defend an improved version of the 'insult account'. I propose an account of earned forgiveness through apology, which shares features with the 'insult account' criticized by Martin, but also improves upon problems found in the 'insult account'. This new account will successfully solve the puzzle of forgiveness. Drawing on Bovens' (2009) account of apologies, I argue that apologies uniquely earn the wrongdoer's forgiveness. I finally address a concern about the relation between apologies and forgiveness, recently raised by Hallich Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16(5), 999-1017, (2016). I argue that my expressive view of what the function of apologies is will answer his skepticism about apologies.