Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series最新文献

Background: Prostate cancer is very common and many localized tumours are non-aggressive. Determining which cancers are aggressive is important for choosing the most appropriate treatment (e.g., surgery, radiation, active surveillance). Current clinical risk stratification is reliable in forecasting the prognosis of groups of men with similar clinical and pathologic characteristics, but there is residual uncertainty at the individual level. The Prolaris cell cycle progression (CCP) test, a genomic test that estimates how fast tumour cells are proliferating, could potentially be used to improve the accuracy of individual risk assessment. This health technology assessment sought to determine the clinical utility, economic impact, and patients' perceptions of the value of the CCP test in low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence of the CCP test in low-and intermediate-risk, localized prostate cancer. Medical and health economic databases were searched from 2010 to June or July 2016. The critical appraisal of the clinical evidence included risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also analyzed the potential budget impact of adding the CCP test into current practice, from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with men with prostate cancer, on the factors that influenced their treatment decision-making.

Results: For the review of clinical effectiveness, we screened 3,021 citations, and two before-after studies met our inclusion criteria. In one study, the results of the CCP test appeared to change the treatment plan (from initial to final plan) in 64.9% of cases overall (GRADE rating of the quality of evidence: Very low). In the other study, the CCP test changed the treatment received in nearly half of cases overall, compared with the initial plan (GRADE: Very low). No evidence was available on clinical outcomes of patients whose treatment was informed by CCP results. For the review of cost-effectiveness, 100 citations were identified and screened. No studies met the inclusion criteria. In our economic evaluation, we estimated that publicly funding the CCP test would result in a total net budget impact of $41.3 million in the first 5 years, mostly due to the cost of the CCP test. In our model, the relatively small cost savings ($7.3 million) due to treatment change (increased use of active surveillance and decreased use of interventional treatment) was not large enough to offset the high cost of the test. Patients viewed the test as potentially helpful but, due to the complexity of treatment decision-making, were unsure the test would ultimately change their treatment choices.

Conclusions: We found no evidence to demonstr

Background: A large proportion of the Ontario population lives with a diagnosed mental illness. Nearly 5% of Ontarians have major depressive disorder, and another 5% have another type of depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, or some other disorder not otherwise specified. Medications are commonly used to treat mental illness, but choosing the right medication for each patient is challenging, and more than 40% of patients discontinue their medication within 90 days because of adverse effects or lack of response. The Assurex GeneSight Psychotropic test is a pharmacogenomic panel that provides clinicians with a report to guide medication selection that is unique to each patient based on their individual genetic profile. However, it is uncertain whether guided treatment using GeneSight is effective compared with unguided treatment (usual care).

Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify English-language studies published before February 22, 2016, that compared GeneSight-guided care and usual care among people with mood disorders, anxiety, or schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were prevention of suicide, remission of depression symptoms, response to depression therapy, depression score, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes of interest were impact on therapeutic decisions and patient and clinician satisfaction. Risk of bias was evaluated, and the quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group criteria.

Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies used a version of GeneSight that included the CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP1A2, SLC6A4, and HTR2A genes; one of the studies also included CYP2C9. Patients who received the GeneSight test to guide psychotropic medication selection had improved response to depression treatment, greater improvements in measures of depression, and greater patient and clinician satisfaction compared with patients who received treatment as usual. We observed no differences in rates of complete remission from depression. The findings were based on GRADE assessment of low to very low quality evidence, and the body of evidence had several limitations: the included studies used an older version of GeneSight and were limited to a population with major depression, so results may not be generalizable to other versions of the test or different populations such as patients with anxiety or schizophrenia.

Conclusions: There is uncertainty about the use of GeneSight Psychotropic pharmacogenomic genetic panel to guide medication selection. It was associated with improvements in some patient outcomes, but not others. As well, our confidence in these findings is low because of limitations in the body of evidence.

Background: A patient safety learning system (sometimes called a critical incident reporting system) refers to structured reporting, collation, and analysis of critical incidents. To inform a provincial working group's recommendations for an Ontario Patient Safety Event Learning System, a systematic review was undertaken to determine design features that would optimize its adoption into the health care system and would inform implementation strategies.

Methods: The objective of this review was to address two research questions: (a) what are the barriers to and facilitators of successful adoption of a patient safety learning system reported by health professionals and (b) what design components maximize successful adoption and implementation? To answer the first question, we used a published systematic review. To answer the second question, we used scoping study methodology.

Results: Common barriers reported in the literature by health care professionals included fear of blame, legal penalties, the perception that incident reporting does not improve patient safety, lack of organizational support, inadequate feedback, lack of knowledge about incident reporting systems, and lack of understanding about what constitutes an error. Common facilitators included a non-accusatory environment, the perception that incident reporting improves safety, clarification of the route of reporting and of how the system uses reports, enhanced feedback, role models (such as managers) using and promoting reporting, legislated protection of those who report, ability to report anonymously, education and training opportunities, and clear guidelines on what to report. Components of a patient safety learning system that increased successful adoption and implementation were emphasis on a blame-free culture that encourages reporting and learning, clear guidelines on how and what to report, making sure the system is user-friendly, organizational development support for data analysis to generate meaningful learning outcomes, and multiple mechanisms to provide feedback through routes to reporters and the wider community (local meetings, email alerts, bulletins, paper contributions, etc.).

Conclusions: The design of a patient safety learning system can be optimized by an awareness of the barriers to and facilitators of successful adoption and implementation identified by health care professionals. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a patient safety learning system is needed to refine its design.

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-using a catheter to place a stent to keep blood vessels open-is increasingly used for high-risk patients who cannot undergo surgery. Cardiogenic shock (when the heart suddenly cannot pump enough blood) is associated with a high mortality rate. The percutaneous ventricular assist device can help control blood pressure and increase blood flow in these high-risk conditions. This health technology assessment examined the benefits, harms, and budget impact of the Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device in high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock. We also analyzed cost-effectiveness of the Impella device in high-risk PCI.

Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature for studies examining the effects of the Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device in high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock, and appraised the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria, focusing on hemodynamic stability, mortality, major adverse cardiac events, bleeding, and vascular complications. We developed a Markov decision-analytical model to assess the cost- effectiveness of Impella devices versus intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using a 10-year time horizon, and conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the estimates. The economic model was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Results: Eighteen studies (one randomized controlled trial and 10 observational studies for high-risk PCI, and one randomized controlled trial and six observational studies for cardiogenic shock) were included in the clinical review. Compared with IABPs, Impella 2.5, one model of the device, improved hemodynamic parameters (GRADE low-very low) but showed no significant difference in mortality (GRADE low), major adverse cardiac events (GRADE low), bleeding (GRADE low), or vascular complications (GRADE low) in high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock. No randomized controlled trials or prospective observational studies with a control group have studied Impella CP and Impella 5.0 (other models of the device) in patients undergoing high-risk PCI or patients with cardiogenic shock. The economic model predicted that treatment with the Impella device would have fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than IABP in high-risk PCI patients. These observations were consistent even when uncertainty in model inputs and parameters was considered. We estimated that adopting Impella would increase costs by $2.9 to $11.5 million per year.

Conclusions: On the basis of evidence of low to very low quality, Impella 2.5 devices were associated with improved hemodynamic stability, but had mortality rates and safety profile similar to IABPs in high-risk PCI

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the gold standard for treating aortic valve stenosis. It is a major operation that requires sternotomy and the use of a heart-lung bypass machine, but in appropriately selected patients with symptomatic, severe aortic valve stenosis, the benefits of SAVR usually outweigh the harms. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure that allows an artificial valve to be implanted over the poorly functioning valve.

Methods: We identified and analyzed randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of TAVI compared with SAVR or balloon aortic valvuloplasty and were published before September 2015. The quality of the body of evidence for each outcome was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. The overall quality was determined to be high, moderate, low, or very low using a step-wise, structural methodology. We also developed a Markov decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR over a 5-year time horizon, and we conducted a 5-year budget impact analysis.

Results: Rates of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality were similar for the TAVI and SAVR groups in all studies except one, which reported significantly lower all-cause mortality in the TAVI group and a higher rate of stroke in the SAVR group. Trials of high-risk patients who were not suitable candidates for SAVR showed significantly better survival with TAVI than with balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Median survival in the TAVI group was 31 months, compared with 11.7 months in the balloon aortic valvuloplasty group. Compared with SAVR, TAVI was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke, major vascular complications, paravalvular aortic regurgitation, and the need for a permanent pacemaker. SAVR was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. Transapical TAVI was associated with higher rates of mortality and stroke than transfemoral TAVI in high-risk patients. TAVI and SAVR both improved patients' quality of life during the first year. However, because of a large amount of missing data and the lack of published data beyond 1 year, it was difficult to evaluate the impact of critical adverse outcomes on patients' longer-term health status. In the base-case analysis, when TAVI was compared with SAVR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $51,988 per quality-adjusted life-year. The 5-year budget impact of funding TAVI ranged from $7.6 to $8.3 million per year.

Conclusions: Moderate quality evidence showed that TAVI and SAVR had similar mortality rates in patients who were eligible for surgery. Information about quality of life showed similar results for TAVI and SAVR in the first year, but was based on low quality evidence. Moderate quality evidence also showed that TAVI wa

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Results: Relevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years.

Conclusions: The 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Background: Adjunct screening with ultrasound has the potential to detect breast cancers that may not be visible on screening mammography. The use of adjunct ultrasonography is thought to be a safe and inexpensive approach to improving the sensitivity of screening with mammography alone, but potentially at the expense of increasing the rate of false-positive findings. The objective of this review was to examine women's experiences of inaccurate breast cancer screening results and how they affect perceptions of breast cancer screening technologies.

Methods: This report synthesizes 16 primary qualitative studies, which together involved 690 participating women, to examine women's experiences of inaccurate breast cancer screening results. Qualitative meta-synthesis was used to integrate findings across primary research studies.

Results: The experience of a false-positive result caused short-term anxiety until the negative result was confirmed. It also led to reoccurring anxiety during future screening. The anxiety experienced in the face of a false-positive result was magnified in high-risk women, who often reflected on the previous breast cancer experiences of family members while awaiting further results. Despite this increased anxiety, women who had experienced a false-positive result were generally not deterred from future screening. Rather, the experiences heightened their awareness of breast cancer and led to a desire for more examinations and more technologies. Women who had experienced false-negative results struggled to restore trust in screening but recognized that some breast cancers were identified through mammography. They were willing to see themselves as exceptions to an otherwise beneficial service.

Conclusions: Qualitative studies provide some insight into how breast cancer screening inaccuracy affects women, including their faith in the screening technology. Although women suffered marked anxiety from experiencing false-positive mammography tests and loss of confidence from false-negative results, these feelings generally did not diminish women's belief in the value of mammography screening. In many cases, the experiences reinforced the importance of risk reduction as well as screening.

Background: Fecal microbiota therapy is increasingly being used to treat patients with Clostridium difficile infection. This health technology assessment primarily evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fecal microbiota therapy compared with the usual treatment (antibiotic therapy).

Methods: We performed a literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. For the economic review, we applied economic filters to these search results. We also searched the websites of agencies for other health technology assessments. We conducted a meta-analysis to analyze effectiveness. The quality of the body of evidence for each outcome was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Using a step-wise, structural methodology, we determined the overall quality to be high, moderate, low, or very low. We used a survey to examine physicians' perception of patients' lived experience, and a modified grounded theory method to analyze information from the survey.

Results: For the review of clinical effectiveness, 16 of 1,173 citations met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials found that fecal microbiota therapy significantly improved diarrhea associated with recurrent C. difficile infection versus treatment with vancomycin (relative risk 3.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-5.68) (GRADE: moderate). While fecal microbiota therapy is not associated with a significant decrease in mortality compared with antibiotic therapy (relative risk 0.69, 95% CI 0.14-3.39) (GRADE: low), it is associated with a significant increase in adverse events (e.g., short-term diarrhea, relative risk 30.76, 95% CI 4.46-212.44; abdominal cramping, relative risk 14.81, 95% CI 2.07-105.97) (GRADE: low). For the value-for-money component, two of 151 economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. One reported that fecal microbiota therapy was dominant (more effective and less expensive) compared with vancomycin; the other reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,016 USD per quality-adjusted life-year for fecal microbiota therapy compared with vancomycin. This ratio for the second study indicated that there would be additional cost associated with each recurrent C. difficile infection resolved. In Ontario, if fecal microbiota therapy were adopted to treat recurrent C. difficile infection, considering it from the perspective of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as the payer, an estimated $1.5 million would be saved after the first year of adoption and $2.9 million after 3 years. The contradiction between the second economic evaluation and the savings we estimated may be a re

Background: Screening with mammography can detect breast cancer early, before clinical symptoms appear. Some cancers, however, are not captured with mammography screening alone. Ultrasound has been suggested as a safe adjunct screening tool that can detect breast cancers missed on mammography. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and cost burden of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography compared with mammography alone for screening women at average risk and at high risk for breast cancer.

Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBM Reviews, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from January 1998 to June 2015, for evidence of effectiveness, harms, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Only studies evaluating the use of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in the specified populations were included. We also conducted a cost analysis to estimate the costs in Ontario over the next 5 years to fund ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in breast cancer screening for high-risk women who are contraindicated for MRI, the current standard of care to supplement mammography.

Results: No studies in average-risk women met the inclusion criteria of the clinical review. We included 5 prospective, paired cohort studies in high-risk women, 4 of which were relevant to the Ontario context. Adjunct ultrasound identified between 2.3 and 5.9 additional breast cancers per 1,000 screens. The average pooled sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound was 53%, a statistically significant increase relative to mammography alone (absolute increase 13%; P < .05). The average pooled specificity of the combined test was 96%, an absolute increase in the false-positive rate of 2% relative to mammography screening alone. The GRADE for this body of evidence was low. Additional annual costs of using breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography for high-risk women in Ontario contraindicated for MRI would range from $15,500 to $30,250 in the next 5 years.

Conclusions: We found no evidence that evaluated the comparative effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography among average-risk women aged 50 years and over. In women at high risk of developing breast cancer, there is low-quality evidence that screening with mammography and adjunct ultrasound detects additional cases of disease, with improved sensitivity compared to mammography alone. Screening with adjunct ultrasound also increases the number of false-positive findings and subsequent biopsy recommendations. It is unclear if the use of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography will reduce breast cancer-related mortality among high-risk women. The annual cost burden of using adjunct ultrasound to screen high-risk women who cannot receive MRI in Ontario would be small.