Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series最新文献

Background: Robotic-assisted surgery has been used in Ontario hospitals for over a decade, but there is no public funding for the robotic systems or the disposables required to perform robotic-assisted surgeries ("robotics disposables"). We conducted a health technology assessment of robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) for the treatment of endometrial cancer in people with obesity. Our assessment included an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of RH, as well as the 5-year budget impact for the Ontario Ministry of Health of publicly funding RH. It also looked at the experiences, preferences, and values of people with endometrial cancer and obesity, as well as those of health care professionals who provide surgical treatment for endometrial cancer.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to identify systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials relevant to our research question. We reported the risk of bias from the included systematic review. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search. We also analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding RH (including total, partial, and radical procedures) for people with endometrial cancer and obesity in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of RH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity, we spoke with people with lived experience of endometrial cancer and obesity who had undergone minimally invasive surgery (either laparoscopic hysterectomy [LH] or RH), and we spoke with gynecological cancer surgeons who perform hysterectomy.

Results: We included one systematic review in the clinical evidence review. An indirect comparison showed that conversion rates to open hysterectomy (OH) were similar for LH and RH in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m² (6.5% vs. 5.5%, respectively) (GRADE: Very low). An indirect comparison within a subset of patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m² showed that a higher proportion of patients who underwent LH required conversion to OH compared with patients who underwent RH (7.0% vs. 3.8%, respectively) (GRADE: Very low). Rates of perioperative complications were similarly low for both LH and RH (≤ 3.5%) (GRADE: Very low). We identified two studies that met the inclusion criteria of our economic literature review. The included economic studies found RH to be more costly than OH or LH for endometrial cancer; however, because these studies were conducted in other countries, the results were not applicable to the Ontario context. Assuming a moderate increase in the volume of robotic-assisted surgeries, our reference case analysis showed that the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding RH for people with endometrial cancer

Background: We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of carrier screening programs for cystic fibrosis (CF), fragile X syndrome (FXS), hemoglobinopathies and thalassemia, and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in people who are considering a pregnancy or who are pregnant. We also evaluated the budget impact of publicly funding carrier screening programs, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted cost-effectiveness analyses comparing preconception or prenatal carrier screening programs to no screening. We considered four carrier screening strategies: 1) universal screening with standard panels; 2) universal screening with a hypothetical expanded panel; 3) risk-based screening with standard panels; and 4) risk-based screening with a hypothetical expanded panel. We also estimated the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding preconception or prenatal carrier screening programs for the given conditions in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of carrier screening, we spoke with 22 people who had sought out carrier screening.

Results: We included 107 studies in the clinical evidence review. Carrier screening for CF, hemoglobinopathies and thalassemia, FXS, and SMA likely results in the identification of couples with an increased chance of having an affected pregnancy (GRADE: Moderate). Screening likely impacts reproductive decision-making (GRADE: Moderate) and may result in lower anxiety among pregnant people, although the evidence is uncertain (GRADE: Very low).We included 21 studies in the economic evidence review, but none of the study findings were directly applicable to the Ontario context. Our cost-effectiveness analyses showed that in the short term, preconception or prenatal carrier screening programs identified more at-risk pregnancies (i.e., couples that tested positive) and provided more reproductive choice options compared with no screening, but were associated with higher costs. While all screening strategies had similar values for health outcomes, when comparing all strategies together, universal screening with standard panels was the most cost-effective strategy for both preconception and prenatal periods. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of universal screening with standard panels compared with no screening in the preconception period were $29,106 per additional at-risk pregnancy detected and $367,731 per affected birth averted; the corre

Background: Ovarian cancer affects the cells of the ovaries, and epithelial cancer is the most common type of malignant ovarian cancer. The homologous recombination repair pathway enables error-free repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Damage of key genes associated with this pathway leads to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which results in unrepaired DNA and can lead to cancer. Tumours with HRD are believed to be sensitive to treatment with poly-adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as niraparib. We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of HRD testing to inform patient decisions about the use of niraparib maintenance therapy for patients with high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer. We also evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with HRD or homologous recombination proficiency (HRP), the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing, the budget impact of publicly funding HRD testing, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 5-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding HRD testing in people with ovarian cancer in Ontario. We performed a literature search for quantitative evidence of patient and provider preferences with respect to HRD testing and maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors. To contextualize the potential value of HRD testing, we spoke with people with ovarian cancer.

Results: The clinical evidence review included two studies in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (one in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cases and one in patients with recurrent cancer). The studies evaluated niraparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy and used HRD testing to group patients according to HRD status. Compared to placebo, niraparib maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, and in tumours with HRD or HRP (GRADE: High), but the studies did not compare the results between the HRD and HRP groups. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the niraparib group. We identified no studies that evaluated the clinical utility of HRD testing.We conducted a primary economic evaluation to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing for people with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer in an Ontario setting. Our analysis used a 5-year time horizon. HRD

Background: Pre-eclampsia is when high blood pressure develops after 20 weeks of pregnancy and either proteinuria, maternal end-organ dysfunction, or uteroplacental dysfunction causing fetal growth restriction also develops. The Fetal Medicine Foundation has created an algorithm ("the FMF algorithm") that uses maternal factors in combination with biophysical and biochemical markers to identify people at high risk for pre-eclampsia so that they can been offered acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin) as a preventive measure. We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of a first-trimester population-wide screening program for pre-eclampsia risk that uses the FMF algorithm ("the FMF-based screening program"). We also evaluated the accuracy of the FMF algorithm, the budget impact of publicly funding the population-wide FMF-based screening program, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each study using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative tool, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the FMF-based screening program to standard care (screening for risk of pre-eclampsia using maternal factors alone) from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding a population-wide FMF-based screening program in Ontario. We spoke with people who have experience with pregnancy and preeclampsia and their family members through direct interviews to gather preferences and values surrounding pre-eclampsia and the potential screening program.

Results: We included nine studies in the clinical evidence review. The FMF-based screening program likely reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia with delivery at less than 37 weeks' gestation compared with standard care, when initiated at 11+⁰ to 13+⁶ weeks' gestation; risk ratios ranged from 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.93) to 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.84) (GRADE: Moderate). It may reduce the risks of low birth weight (risk ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.85-0.94]) and low Apgar score (risk ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.63-0.85]) (GRADE: Low). Evidence on the effectiveness of the FMF-based screening program in reducing the risk of stillbirth and neonatal death was highly uncertain (GRADE: Very low). In addition, the FMF algorithm can improve the detection rate of pre-eclampsia with delivery at less than 37 weeks' gestation or at less than 34 weeks' gestation compared with conventional algorithms, although there are concerns about bias and applicability ac

Background: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited disorder characterized by abnormally elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol serum levels from birth, which increases the risk of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Genetic testing is a type of a medical test that looks for changes in genes or chromosome structure to discover genetic differences, anomalies, or mutations that may prove pathological. It is regarded as the gold standard for screening and diagnosing FH. We conducted a health technology assessment on genetic testing for people with FH and their relatives (i.e., cascade screening). The assessment included an evaluation of clinical utility (the ability of a test to improve health outcomes), the diagnostic yield (ability of a test to identify people with FH), cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding genetic testing for FH, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. For evaluation of clinical utility, we assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the ROBINS-I tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of using genetic testing both for confirming a FH clinical diagnosis and for cascade screening in relatives of genetically confirmed cases. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of cascade screening strategies with genetic testing, sequential testing, and lipid testing approaches. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding genetic testing in Ontario.

Results: We included 11 studies in the clinical evidence review. Overall, our review found that genetic testing to diagnose FH improves several health outcomes (GRADE: Moderate) compared with clinical evaluation without a genetic test. We also found that genetic cascade screening leads to a high diagnostic yield of FH.According to our primary economic evaluation, genetic testing is a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) compared with no genetic testing for individuals with a FH clinical diagnosis. It reduced the number of FH diagnoses, led to fewer cardiovascular events, and improved QALYs. For first-degree relatives of genetically confirmed cases, all cascade screening strategies (genetic testing, sequential testing, and lipid testing) were cost-effective when compared with no cascade screening in a pairwise fashion. The ICERs of cascade screening with genetic, sequential, and lipid testing compared with no cascade screening were $58,390, $50,220, and $45,754 per QALY gained, respectively. When comparing all screening strategies together, cascade screen

Background: Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the most common cause of surgical site infections, and the nose is the most common site for S. aureus colonization. Pre-surgical (in the days prior to surgery) nasal decolonization of S. aureus may reduce the bacterial load and prevent the organisms from being transferred to the surgical site, thus reducing the risk of surgical site infection. We conducted a health technology assessment of nasal decolonization of S. aureus (including methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant strains) with or without topical antiseptic body wash to prevent surgical site infection in patients undergoing scheduled surgery, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding nasal decolonization of S. aureus, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and selected and reported results from one review that was recent, of high quality, and relevant to our research question. We complemented the chosen systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published since the systematic review was published in 2019. We used the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool to assess the risk of bias of each included systematic review and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials to assess the risk of bias of each included primary study. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a decision-tree model with a 1-year time horizon from the perspective of Ontario's Ministry of Health. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding nasal decolonization of S. aureus in pre-surgical patients in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of nasal decolonization, we spoke with people who had recently undergone surgery, some of whom had received nasal decolonization, and one family member of a person who had recently had surgery. We also engaged participants through an online survey.

Results: We included one systematic review and three randomized controlled trials in the clinical evidence review. In universal decolonization, compared with placebo or no intervention, nasal mupirocin alone may result in little to no difference in the incidence of overall and S. aureus-related surgical site infections in pre-surgical patients undergoing orthopaedic, cardiothoracic, general, oncologic, gynaecologic, neurologic, or abdominal digestive surgeries, regardless of S. aureus carrier status (GRADE: Moderate to Very low). Compared with placebo, nasal mupiro

Background: Bioprosthetic valves used to treat mitral or tricuspid valve disease can be expected to deteriorate and eventually fail after 10 to 15 years. For patients who are considered inoperable or high-risk for surgery, medical management (i.e., drug therapy, the current standard of care in Ontario) does not significantly alter the course of valvular heart disease or improve degenerated bioprosthetic valves. An alternative for these patients is transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (TMViV or TTViV). We conducted a health technology assessment of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for adults with degenerated mitral or tricuspid bioprosthetic valves who are considered inoperable or high-risk for surgery, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding TMViV or TTViV, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We leveraged a previously published systematic review, supplementing the work with two new registry studies identified during the development of this report. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Downs and Black checklist and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. As the earlier systematic review did not identify any cost-effectiveness studies, we conducted a hand search of the grey literature using targeted websites to identify relevant cost-effectiveness studies. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for adults with degenerated mitral or tricuspid bioprostheses who are considered inoperable or high-risk for surgery in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of TMViV and TTViV, we spoke with people who had experience with heart valve replacement or who were awaiting heart valve replacement.

Results: We included 19 studies in the clinical evidence review. No studies compared TMViV or TTViV to medical management (standard care). TMViV was associated with in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of 0% to 5%, 0% to 15%, and 14% to 27%, respectively (GRADE: Very low). TTViV was associated with 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of 0% to 3% and 0% to 14%, respectively (GRADE: Very low). Patients experienced functional improvement related to their heart failure symptoms after TMViV or TTViV. Compared to before the intervention, both TMViV and TTViV were associated with a decrease in the number of patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms in hospital and at 30-day follow-up (GRADE: Low). We identified no relevant cost-effectiveness studies from our targeted search. The annual budget impact of publicly funding TMViV and TTViV in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from an additional $0.35 million in year 1 to a cost saving of $0.19 million in year 5, for a total cost saving of $0.33 m