首页 > 最新文献

Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series最新文献

英文 中文
Skin Substitutes for Adults With Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment. 成人糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡的皮肤替代品:一项健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-06-04 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Wounds may be caused in a variety of ways. Some wounds are difficult to heal, such as diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. We conducted a health technology assessment of skin substitutes for adults with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes, 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 studies (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 26-week time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes in adults with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers in Ontario. We explored the underlying values, needs, and priorities of those who have lived experience with diabetic leg ulcers and venous leg ulcers, as well as their preferences for and perceptions of skin substitutes.

Results: We included 40 studies in the clinical evidence review. Adults with difficult-to-heal neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers who used dermal (GRADE: High) or multi-layered (GRADE: Moderate) skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care were more likely to experience complete wound healing than those whose who used standard care alone. Adults with difficult-to-heal venous leg ulcers who used dermal (GRADE: Moderate) or multi-layered (GRADE: High) skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care were more likely to experience complete wound healing than those who used standard care alone. The evidence for the effectiveness of epidermal skin substitutes was inconclusive for venous leg ulcers because of the small size of the individual studies (GRADE: Very low). We found no studies on epidermal skin substitutes for diabetic foot ulcers. We could not evaluate the safety of skin substitutes versus standard care, because the number of adverse events was either very low or zero (because sample sizes were too small).In our economic analysis, the use of skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care was more costly and more effective than standard care alone for the treatment of difficult-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. For diabetic foot ulcers, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of skin substitutes plus standard care compared with standard care alone was $48,242 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and the cost per ulcer-free week was $158. For venous leg ulcers, the ICER was $1,868,850 per QALY, and the cost per ulcer-free week was $3,235. At the commonly used willin

背景:造成伤口的方式多种多样。有些伤口很难愈合,如糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡。我们对患有神经性糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡的成人皮肤替代品进行了一项健康技术评估,其中包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助皮肤替代品的预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用Cochrane随机研究的偏倚风险工具(版本2)评估了每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估了证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从公共付款人的角度进行了26周时间范围内的成本效用分析。我们还分析了安大略省政府资助皮肤替代品对糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡成人的预算影响。我们探讨了糖尿病腿溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡患者的潜在价值、需求和优先事项,以及他们对皮肤替代品的偏好和看法。结果:我们在临床证据综述中纳入了40项研究。患有难以愈合的神经性糖尿病足溃疡的成人,使用真皮(GRADE:高)或多层(GRADE:中等)皮肤替代品作为标准护理的辅助,比单独使用标准护理的患者更有可能经历完全的伤口愈合。使用真皮(GRADE:中度)或多层(GRADE:高)皮肤替代品作为标准护理辅助的难以愈合的静脉性腿部溃疡的成人比单独使用标准护理的人更有可能经历完全的伤口愈合。由于个体研究的规模较小,表皮皮肤替代物对静脉性腿部溃疡的有效性尚无定论(GRADE: Very low)。我们没有发现表皮皮肤替代品治疗糖尿病足溃疡的研究。我们无法评估皮肤替代品与标准护理的安全性,因为不良事件的数量非常低或为零(因为样本量太小)。在我们的经济分析中,使用皮肤替代品作为标准治疗的辅助手段,对于治疗难以治愈的糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡,比单独使用标准治疗更昂贵,也更有效。对于糖尿病足溃疡,与单独标准治疗相比,皮肤替代品加标准治疗的增量成本-效果比(ICER)为每个质量调整生命年(QALY) 48,242美元,每个无溃疡周的成本为158美元。对于静脉性腿部溃疡,ICER为每个QALY 1,868,850美元,每个无溃疡周的成本为3,235美元。在每个QALY通常使用的支付意愿为50,000美元时,皮肤替代品加标准护理与单独标准护理的成本效益对于糖尿病足溃疡是不确定的(47%的成本效益概率),对于静脉性腿溃疡是极不可能的(0%的成本效益概率)。在每个QALY通常使用的10万美元的支付意愿下,皮肤替代品加标准护理与单独标准护理的成本效益对糖尿病足溃疡患者来说是中等可能的(成本效益概率为71%),对静脉性腿溃疡患者来说是非常不可能的(成本效益概率为0%)。在安大略省,未来5年,公共资助皮肤替代品的年度预算影响将从第一年的17万美元到第五年的120万美元不等,用于糖尿病足溃疡患者,从第一年的100万美元到第五年的770万美元不等。直接患者参与包括本次评估的3名参与者和先前针对糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡干预措施的卫生技术评估的51名参与者。与会者谈到了在流动性、就业、社会活动以及情感和心理健康方面对其生活质量的负面影响。没有参与者有使用皮肤替代品的直接经验,但参与者对这种治疗选择持开放态度。获得皮肤替代品的障碍包括安大略省各地皮肤替代品的有限使用,糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡患者对皮肤替代品缺乏了解,以及成本。结论:真皮和多层皮肤替代品作为标准护理的辅助,在完全治愈成人难治性神经性糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡方面比单独标准护理更有效。在治疗难以治愈的神经性糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡时,使用皮肤替代品作为标准治疗的辅助手段比单独使用标准治疗更昂贵,也更有效。 对于患有糖尿病足溃疡的成人,与标准治疗相比,皮肤替代品是否具有成本效益取决于支付意愿。与标准护理相比,皮肤替代品具有成本效益的可能性不确定,每次质量aly为50,000美元,中等可能性为每次质量aly为100,000美元。对于患有静脉性腿部溃疡的成年人,与标准治疗相比,皮肤替代品极不可能具有成本效益。我们估计,在安大略省,公共资助皮肤替代品将在未来5年内分别为糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡患者带来300万美元和2000万美元的额外费用。患有糖尿病足溃疡和静脉性腿溃疡的人对使用皮肤替代品作为治疗选择持开放态度。
{"title":"Skin Substitutes for Adults With Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Wounds may be caused in a variety of ways. Some wounds are difficult to heal, such as diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. We conducted a health technology assessment of skin substitutes for adults with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 studies (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 26-week time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes in adults with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers in Ontario. We explored the underlying values, needs, and priorities of those who have lived experience with diabetic leg ulcers and venous leg ulcers, as well as their preferences for and perceptions of skin substitutes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 40 studies in the clinical evidence review. Adults with difficult-to-heal neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers who used dermal (GRADE: High) or multi-layered (GRADE: Moderate) skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care were more likely to experience complete wound healing than those whose who used standard care alone. Adults with difficult-to-heal venous leg ulcers who used dermal (GRADE: Moderate) or multi-layered (GRADE: High) skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care were more likely to experience complete wound healing than those who used standard care alone. The evidence for the effectiveness of epidermal skin substitutes was inconclusive for venous leg ulcers because of the small size of the individual studies (GRADE: Very low). We found no studies on epidermal skin substitutes for diabetic foot ulcers. We could not evaluate the safety of skin substitutes versus standard care, because the number of adverse events was either very low or zero (because sample sizes were too small).In our economic analysis, the use of skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care was more costly and more effective than standard care alone for the treatment of difficult-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. For diabetic foot ulcers, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of skin substitutes plus standard care compared with standard care alone was $48,242 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and the cost per ulcer-free week was $158. For venous leg ulcers, the ICER was $1,868,850 per QALY, and the cost per ulcer-free week was $3,235. At the commonly used willin","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 7","pages":"1-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8210978/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39073691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Nonthermal Endovenous Procedures for Varicose Veins: A Health Technology Assessment. 静脉曲张的非热性静脉内手术:健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-06-04 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Varicose veins are part of the spectrum of chronic venous disease and are a sign of underlying chronic venous insufficiency. Treatments to address varicose veins include surgical vein removal under general anesthesia, or endovenous laser (EVLA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) under tumescent anesthesia. Two newer nonthermal endovenous procedures can close veins without any tumescent anesthesia, using either mechanochemical ablation (MOCA, a combination of mechanical and chemical techniques) or cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC). We conducted a health technology assessment of these nonthermal endovenous procedures for people with symptomatic varicose veins, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding MOCA and CAC, 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 or RoBANS tool, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2, where appropriate.We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of Ontario Ministry of Health. In our primary economic evaluation, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonthermal endovenous procedures (CAC and MOCA) compared with surgical vein stripping and thermal endovenous therapies (EVLA and RFA). We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding nonthermal and thermal endovenous therapies for adults with symptomatic varicose veins in Ontario over the next 5 years. Costs are expressed in 2020 Canadian dollars.To contextualize the potential value of nonthermal endovenous treatments, we spoke with 13 people with varicose veins who had sought various treatment options. We conducted phone interviews and qualitatively analyzed their responses regarding their care journey and the impact of different treatment options; the only nonthermal treatment that participants had experience with was CAC.

Results: We included 19 primary studies reported in 25 publications comparing either MOCA or CAC with at least one other invasive treatment for symptomatic varicose veins. No studies compared MOCA with CAC. Based on evidence of low to moderate quality, MOCA resulted in slightly poorer technical outcomes (vein closure and recanalization) than thermal endovenous ablation procedures. However, clinical outcomes, quality of life improvement, and patient satisfaction were similar compared with RFA (GRADE: Very low to Moderate) and EVLA (GRADE: High). Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure resulted in little to no difference in technical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and quality of life improvement compar

背景:静脉曲张是慢性静脉疾病的一部分,是潜在的慢性静脉功能不全的标志。治疗静脉曲张的方法包括全身麻醉下的手术静脉切除,或肿胀麻醉下的静脉内激光(EVLA)或射频消融(RFA)。两种新的非热静脉内手术可以在没有任何肿胀麻醉的情况下关闭静脉,使用机械化学消融(MOCA,机械和化学技术的结合)或氰基丙烯酸酯胶粘剂关闭(CAC)。我们对这些治疗症状性静脉曲张患者的非热静脉内手术进行了健康技术评估,包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助MOCA和CAC的预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险或RoBANS工具评估每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。在适当的情况下,使用Review Manager 5.2进行meta分析。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从安大略省卫生部的角度进行了5年时间范围的成本效用分析。在我们的初步经济评估中,我们评估了非热静脉内手术(CAC和MOCA)与外科静脉剥离和热静脉内治疗(EVLA和RFA)的成本效益。我们还分析了安大略省未来5年公共资助的成人症状性静脉曲张非热和热静脉内治疗的预算影响。费用以2020年加元表示。为了了解非热静脉内治疗的潜在价值,我们采访了13名寻求各种治疗方案的静脉曲张患者。我们进行了电话访谈,并定性分析了他们对护理过程的反应和不同治疗方案的影响;参与者唯一经历过的非热治疗是CAC。结果:我们纳入了25篇出版物中报道的19项初步研究,比较MOCA或CAC与至少一种其他有创治疗对症性静脉曲张的效果。没有研究比较MOCA和CAC。基于低到中等质量的证据,MOCA导致的技术结果(静脉关闭和再通)略低于热静脉内消融手术。然而,与RFA(评分:极低至中等)和EVLA(评分:高)相比,临床结果、生活质量改善和患者满意度相似。与RFA和EVLA相比,氰基丙烯酸酯胶粘剂闭合在技术结果、临床结果和生活质量改善方面几乎没有差异(GRADE: Moderate)。患者满意度也可能相似(GRADE: Low)。与热消融相比,非热静脉内手术的恢复时间略有减少(GRADE: Moderate)。与外科静脉剥离相比,CAC的效果非常不确定(GRADE: very low)。任何手术的主要并发症都是罕见的,轻微并发症如预期发生并解决。我们在经济证据综述中纳入了两项部分适用于安大略省背景的欧洲研究。两项研究都发现,与手术静脉剥离和非热疗法相比,热消融(RFA、EVLA或蒸汽静脉硬化)是最具成本效益的治疗方法。我们的成本效用分析显示,在静脉曲张的五种治疗方法中,手术静脉剥离是最无效和最昂贵的治疗方法。静脉内治疗(CAC、MOCA、RFA和EVLA)之间的质量调整生命年(QALYs)差异很小。当每个QALY的支付意愿值为5万美元时,EVLA、CAC、MOCA、RFA和外科静脉剥离的成本效益概率分别为55.6%、18.8%、15.6%、10.0%和0%。当WTP为每QALY 10万美元时,EVLA、CAC、RFA、MOCA和外科静脉剥离的成本效益概率分别为40.2%、30.0%、17.7%、12.1%和0%。公共资助的静脉内手术(包括非热的和热的)将增加治疗的总量,导致5年的预算影响约为1700万美元。与我们交谈的静脉曲张患者积极地报告了他们的CAC手术经验及其结果。他们还描述了获得一系列可用治疗方案的地理和经济障碍。结论:与热消融相比,氰基丙烯酸酯胶粘剂闭合和MOCA产生了相似的患者重要结果,恢复时间稍短。 氰基丙烯酸酯胶粘剂闭合的解剖结果与热静脉内消融相似,但MOCA的技术结果稍差。与手术静脉剥离相比,所有静脉内治疗都更有效,费用更低。如果我们要考虑最具成本效益的策略(每个QALY的WTP低于100,000美元),EVLA最有可能是具有成本效益的。假设在接下来的5年里,符合条件的人数增加了80%,我们估计安大略省静脉曲张的非热和热静脉内治疗的公共资金将从第一年的259万美元到第五年的435万美元不等,5年的预算影响将在1700万美元左右。对于患有静脉曲张的人来说,CAC手术被视为一种积极的治疗方法,可以减轻他们的症状,提高他们的生活质量。
{"title":"Nonthermal Endovenous Procedures for Varicose Veins: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Varicose veins are part of the spectrum of chronic venous disease and are a sign of underlying chronic venous insufficiency. Treatments to address varicose veins include surgical vein removal under general anesthesia, or endovenous laser (EVLA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) under tumescent anesthesia. Two newer nonthermal endovenous procedures can close veins without any tumescent anesthesia, using either mechanochemical ablation (MOCA, a combination of mechanical and chemical techniques) or cyanoacrylate adhesive closure (CAC). We conducted a health technology assessment of these nonthermal endovenous procedures for people with symptomatic varicose veins, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding MOCA and CAC, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 or RoBANS tool, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2, where appropriate.We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of Ontario Ministry of Health. In our primary economic evaluation, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonthermal endovenous procedures (CAC and MOCA) compared with surgical vein stripping and thermal endovenous therapies (EVLA and RFA). We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding nonthermal and thermal endovenous therapies for adults with symptomatic varicose veins in Ontario over the next 5 years. Costs are expressed in 2020 Canadian dollars.To contextualize the potential value of nonthermal endovenous treatments, we spoke with 13 people with varicose veins who had sought various treatment options. We conducted phone interviews and qualitatively analyzed their responses regarding their care journey and the impact of different treatment options; the only nonthermal treatment that participants had experience with was CAC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 19 primary studies reported in 25 publications comparing either MOCA or CAC with at least one other invasive treatment for symptomatic varicose veins. No studies compared MOCA with CAC. Based on evidence of low to moderate quality, MOCA resulted in slightly poorer technical outcomes (vein closure and recanalization) than thermal endovenous ablation procedures. However, clinical outcomes, quality of life improvement, and patient satisfaction were similar compared with RFA (GRADE: Very low to Moderate) and EVLA (GRADE: High). Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure resulted in little to no difference in technical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and quality of life improvement compar","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 8","pages":"1-188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8208443/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39073692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Health Technology Assessment. 前列腺动脉栓塞治疗良性前列腺增生症:健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-06-04 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate that commonly affects older people with prostates and may lead to obstructive urinary symptoms. Symptoms may initially be mild but tend to worsen over time. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an endovascular procedure to treat BPH, wherein an interventional radiologist inserts a catheter into the patient to inject tiny particles intended to reduce blood flow to the enlarged prostate, causing it to shrink in size. We conducted a health technology assessment on PAE for people with BPH, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding PAE, 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 controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. 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 review of the economic literature. We then assessed the cost-effectiveness of PAE compared with alternative treatments (i.e., transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] or open simple prostatectomy [OSP]) using a Markov microsimulation model. The analysis was conducted from the Ontario Ministry of Health perspective over a time horizon of 6.5 years. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding PAE in people with moderate to severe BPH in Ontario.

Results: We included six studies in our systematic review. Four RCTs and one observational study compared PAE with TURP, and one observational study compared PAE with OSP. All studies had considerable risk-of-bias concerns. PAE may improve BPH symptoms and urodynamic measures, but we are uncertain whether PAE achieves better results than TURP (GRADE: Very low to Low). Compared with TURP, PAE may result in higher patient satisfaction and fewer adverse events (GRADE: Not assessed). Compared with OSP, PAE may result in smaller improvements in BPH symptoms and urodynamic measures and may lead to fewer adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (GRADE: Very low).We did not find any published cost-effectiveness studies in the economic literature review. Our primary economic evaluation showed that, compared with TURP, PAE has an incremental cost of $328 (95% CrI: -$686 to $1,423) and a very small incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.007 (95% CrI: -0.004 to 0.018). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PAE versus TURP is $44,930 per QALY gained. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness of PAE is uncertain (5

背景:良性前列腺增生(BPH)是一种非癌症性前列腺增生,常见于有前列腺的老年人,并可能导致排尿障碍症状。最初的症状可能较轻,但随着时间的推移往往会加重。前列腺动脉栓塞术(PAE)是一种治疗良性前列腺增生症的血管内手术,介入放射科医生将导管插入患者体内,注入微小颗粒,以减少流向增生前列腺的血流量,使其缩小。我们对前列腺增生症患者的 PAE 进行了一项健康技术评估,评估内容包括有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助 PAE 对预算的影响以及患者的偏好和价值观:我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用科克伦偏倚风险工具(Cochrane Risk of Bias)对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了评估,并使用非随机干预研究偏倚风险工具(ROBINS-I)对观察性研究进行了评估。我们根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组的标准评估了证据的质量。我们对经济学文献进行了系统回顾。然后,我们使用马尔可夫微观模拟模型评估了 PAE 与其他治疗方法(即经尿道前列腺切除术 [TURP] 或开放性单纯前列腺切除术 [OSP])相比的成本效益。分析从安大略省卫生部的角度出发,时间跨度为 6.5 年。我们还分析了对安大略省中重度良性前列腺增生症患者进行公共资助 PAE 的预算影响:我们在系统性回顾中纳入了六项研究。四项 RCT 和一项观察性研究将 PAE 与 TURP 进行了比较,一项观察性研究将 PAE 与 OSP 进行了比较。所有研究都存在相当大的偏倚风险。PAE 可改善良性前列腺增生症的症状和尿动力学指标,但我们不能确定 PAE 是否比 TURP 取得更好的效果(分级:极低至低)。与 TURP 相比,PAE 可使患者满意度更高,不良反应更少(GRADE:未评估)。与 OSP 相比,PAE 对良性前列腺增生症症状和尿动力学指标的改善可能较小,并可能导致较少的不良事件,但证据非常不确定(GRADE:极低)。我们的主要经济评估显示,与 TURP 相比,PAE 的增量成本为 328 美元(95% 置信区间:-686 美元至 1,423 美元),增量质量调整生命年 (QALY) 非常小,为 0.007(95% 置信区间:-0.004 至 0.018)。因此,PAE 与 TURP 相比,每获得 1 QALY 的增量成本效益比 (ICER) 为 44,930 美元。按照常用的每 QALY 50,000 美元和 100,000 美元的支付意愿值计算,PAE 的成本效益并不确定(与 TURP 相比,PAE 具有成本效益的概率分别为 52% 和 68%)。在一项情景分析中,我们比较了 PAE 与前列腺肥大患者(可能不符合 TURP 治疗条件)的 OSP。我们发现 PAE 的成本较低(-1,231 美元;95% 置信区间:-2,457 美元至 69 美元),疗效较差(-0.12 QALYs;95% 置信区间:-0.18 至 -0.04)。PAE 与 OSP 相比,每损失一个 QALY 的 ICER 为 10,241 美元。按照常用的每 QALY 50,000 美元的支付意愿值计算,PAE 不可能具有成本效益(与 OSP 相比具有成本效益的概率为 2%)。假设采用率较低(即在第 1 至第 5 年每年增加 10 至 50 例手术),我们估计在安大略省公共资助 PAE 将在未来 5 年增加约 11,400 加元的成本。接受过前列腺动脉栓塞术的人表示,他们对该手术有积极的体验,症状也得到了明显改善:结论:前列腺动脉栓塞术可能会改善良性前列腺增生症的症状和尿动力学指标,但我们还不确定该手术是否会带来与 TURP 类似的结果。根据一项观察性研究,前列腺动脉栓塞术与前列腺电切术相比,改善程度可能较小,但我们对相关证据还很不确定。与 TURP 和 OSP 相比,PAE 可能会导致较少的不良事件。我们需要进行更长期的比较研究,以评估 PAE 的耐久性和长期不良事件、PAE 后重新干预的潜在需求,以及 PAE 与其他现有良性前列腺增生治疗方案的比较。此外,与 OSP 相比,PAE 不可能具有成本效益。如果 PAE 在安大略省得到公共资助,估计在未来 5 年内对预算的影响较小。有良性前列腺增生症生活经验的人报告说,PAE 可改善生活质量并减少良性前列腺增生症的负面症状。
{"title":"Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate that commonly affects older people with prostates and may lead to obstructive urinary symptoms. Symptoms may initially be mild but tend to worsen over time. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an endovascular procedure to treat BPH, wherein an interventional radiologist inserts a catheter into the patient to inject tiny particles intended to reduce blood flow to the enlarged prostate, causing it to shrink in size. We conducted a health technology assessment on PAE for people with BPH, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding PAE, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. 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 review of the economic literature. We then assessed the cost-effectiveness of PAE compared with alternative treatments (i.e., transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] or open simple prostatectomy [OSP]) using a Markov microsimulation model. The analysis was conducted from the Ontario Ministry of Health perspective over a time horizon of 6.5 years. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding PAE in people with moderate to severe BPH in Ontario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included six studies in our systematic review. Four RCTs and one observational study compared PAE with TURP, and one observational study compared PAE with OSP. All studies had considerable risk-of-bias concerns. PAE may improve BPH symptoms and urodynamic measures, but we are uncertain whether PAE achieves better results than TURP (GRADE: Very low to Low). Compared with TURP, PAE may result in higher patient satisfaction and fewer adverse events (GRADE: Not assessed). Compared with OSP, PAE may result in smaller improvements in BPH symptoms and urodynamic measures and may lead to fewer adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (GRADE: Very low).We did not find any published cost-effectiveness studies in the economic literature review. Our primary economic evaluation showed that, compared with TURP, PAE has an incremental cost of $328 (95% CrI: -$686 to $1,423) and a very small incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.007 (95% CrI: -0.004 to 0.018). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PAE versus TURP is $44,930 per QALY gained. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness of PAE is uncertain (5","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 6","pages":"1-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8202600/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39053159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Pigmented Lesion Assay for Suspected Melanoma Lesions: A Health Technology Assessment. 疑似黑色素瘤病变的色素沉着检测:一项健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-06-04 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Early detection of melanoma is key, as survival rates are substantially better when the cancer is detected in its early stages. Currently, the standard of care is to biopsy any lesion suspected of melanoma for diagnostic confirmation by histopathology. As a result, most people who undergo biopsy receive negative melanoma results. If effective, a non-invasive alternative, such as pigmented lesion assay, could minimize the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. We conducted a health technology assessment of pigmented lesion assay for people with suspected melanoma lesions, which included an evaluation of diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, the budget impact of publicly funding pigmented lesion assay, and the preferences and values of people who have undergone biopsy for suspected melanoma.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS). 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 literature search of the economic evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding pigmented lesion assay in adults with suspected melanoma in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of pigmented lesion assay, we spoke with people who had undergone skin biopsy for melanoma. We also used the qualitative research synthesis from a report by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to provide context for the preferences and values of those with suspected melanoma.

Results: We included seven studies in the clinical evidence review. Pigmented lesion assay has a sensitivity of 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58%-93%) and a specificity of 80% (95% CI 73%-85%; GRADE: Low). We found one published cost-effectiveness study with potentially serious limitations. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of pigmented lesion assay compared with the standard care pathway is currently uncertain. Assuming a very low uptake, we estimated that the budget impact of publicly funding pigmented lesion assay in Ontario over the next 5 years is about $3.44 million if the test is used exclusively by primary care providers, or about $2.56 million if it is used exclusively by specialists. The people with whom we spoke who had experienced biopsy for suspected melanoma responded positively to the potential benefits of pigmented lesion assay, emphasizing its ease-of-use, potential increase in early detection of melanoma, and reduction in physical and emotional burden of unnecessary biopsies. Participants also felt that the accuracy of this tool was essential to ensure minimal false negatives.

Conclusions:

背景:黑色素瘤的早期发现是关键,因为如果癌症在早期阶段被发现,生存率会大大提高。目前,治疗的标准是对任何疑似黑色素瘤的病变进行活检,并通过组织病理学进行诊断确认。因此,大多数接受活检的人都得到了阴性的黑色素瘤结果。如果有效,一种非侵入性的替代方法,如色素病变测定,可以减少不必要的活检次数。我们对疑似黑色素瘤患者的色素病变检测进行了健康技术评估,包括对诊断准确性、临床效用、公共资助色素病变检测的预算影响以及因疑似黑色素瘤接受活检的患者的偏好和价值的评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2 (QUADAS-2)和非随机研究偏倚风险评估工具(RoBANS)评估了每个纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们根据建议分级评估、发展和评价(GRADE)工作组标准评估了证据体的质量。我们对经济证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们还分析了安大略省成人疑似黑色素瘤患者的色素病变检测的公共资助预算影响。为了了解色素病变检测的潜在价值,我们采访了因黑色素瘤而接受皮肤活检的患者。我们还使用了加拿大药物和健康技术机构报告中的定性研究综合,为疑似黑色素瘤患者的偏好和价值观提供了背景。结果:我们在临床证据综述中纳入了7项研究。色素病变检测的敏感性为79%(95%可信区间[CI] 58%-93%),特异性为80% (95% CI 73%-85%;等级:低)。我们发现一项已发表的成本效益研究存在潜在的严重局限性。因此,与标准治疗途径相比,色素病变检测的成本效益目前尚不确定。假设使用率很低,我们估计在未来5年内,安大略省公共资助色素病变检测的预算影响约为344万美元,如果该检测仅供初级保健提供者使用,则约为256万美元,如果仅供专家使用。我们采访的那些因疑似黑色素瘤而经历活组织检查的人对色素病变检测的潜在好处做出了积极的反应,强调其易用性,黑色素瘤早期检测的潜在增加,以及减少不必要的活组织检查带来的身体和情感负担。与会者还认为,该工具的准确性对于确保将假阴性降到最低至关重要。结论:由于色素性病变检测诊断准确性的证据质量较低,存在不确定性。与标准护理相比,色素病变检测的成本效益也不确定。我们估计,在安大略省,未来5年公共资助的色素病变检测将导致344万美元的额外费用(如果仅供初级保健提供者使用)或256万美元(如果仅供专家使用)。对于那些因疑似黑色素瘤而经历活检的人来说,如果该工具是准确的,那么色素病变测定可以作为一种有效的工具来增加早期发现并避免不必要的活检。
{"title":"Pigmented Lesion Assay for Suspected Melanoma Lesions: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early detection of melanoma is key, as survival rates are substantially better when the cancer is detected in its early stages. Currently, the standard of care is to biopsy any lesion suspected of melanoma for diagnostic confirmation by histopathology. As a result, most people who undergo biopsy receive negative melanoma results. If effective, a non-invasive alternative, such as pigmented lesion assay, could minimize the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. We conducted a health technology assessment of pigmented lesion assay for people with suspected melanoma lesions, which included an evaluation of diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, the budget impact of publicly funding pigmented lesion assay, and the preferences and values of people who have undergone biopsy for suspected melanoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS). 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 literature search of the economic evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding pigmented lesion assay in adults with suspected melanoma in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of pigmented lesion assay, we spoke with people who had undergone skin biopsy for melanoma. We also used the qualitative research synthesis from a report by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to provide context for the preferences and values of those with suspected melanoma.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included seven studies in the clinical evidence review. Pigmented lesion assay has a sensitivity of 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58%-93%) and a specificity of 80% (95% CI 73%-85%; GRADE: Low). We found one published cost-effectiveness study with potentially serious limitations. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of pigmented lesion assay compared with the standard care pathway is currently uncertain. Assuming a very low uptake, we estimated that the budget impact of publicly funding pigmented lesion assay in Ontario over the next 5 years is about $3.44 million if the test is used exclusively by primary care providers, or about $2.56 million if it is used exclusively by specialists. The people with whom we spoke who had experienced biopsy for suspected melanoma responded positively to the potential benefits of pigmented lesion assay, emphasizing its ease-of-use, potential increase in early detection of melanoma, and reduction in physical and emotional burden of unnecessary biopsies. Participants also felt that the accuracy of this tool was essential to ensure minimal false negatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </s","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 5","pages":"1-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8196402/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39053157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or Acute Stress Disorder: A Health Technology Assessment. 互联网提供的创伤后应激障碍或急性应激障碍的认知行为疗法:健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-06-01 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder (ASD) are mental health conditions that may emerge following a frightening or traumatic event in a person's life. We conducted a health technology assessment of internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for adults with PTSD or ASD, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding iCBT for PTSD or ADS, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of systematic reviews using ROBIS and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 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 to summarize the economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of iCBT for adults with PTSD or ASD. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation on iCBT for adults with PTSD, as an existing cost-utility analysis is directly applicable to this research question. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation on iCBT for adults with ASD, as there is limited clinical evidence on this topic and because evidence on iCBT for PTSD may be generalizable to iCBT for ASD at risk of progressing to PTSD. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding iCBT for adults with PTSD or ASD in Ontario over the next 5 years.To contextualize the potential value of iCBT for PTSD, we reviewed relevant literature on patients' preferences and values and spoke with people who have lived experience with PTSD to explore their values, needs, and priorities.

Results: We identified no studies on the use of iCBT for prevention of PTSD or studies on the use of iCBT to treat ASD, nor studies that directly compared iCBT with face-to-face CBT for the treatment of PTSD. We included one systematic review of the use of iCBT to treat PTSD (10 RCTs, N = 720). Overall, iCBT is more effective than wait-list (waiting for iCBT) or usual care alone for reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.60 [95% CI -0.97 to -0.24]; N = 560, 8 RCTs) (GRADE: Very low). Internet-delivered CBT is not more effective than non-CBT internet-delivered interventions for reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms (SMD = -0.08 [-0.52 to 0.35]; N = 82, 2 RCTs) (GRADE: Very low).We identified one economic evaluation on the cost-effectiveness of iCBT for adults with PTSD. For adults with PTSD, iCBT was found to be dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) compared with usual care. The model used a Canadian public health care payer perspective, and there were no major limitations to the model structure, time horizon, or source of model inputs. The annual budget impact of publicly funding iCBT in Ontario

背景:创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)和急性应激障碍(ASD)是一种心理健康状况,可能在一个人的生活中经历可怕或创伤性事件后出现。我们对成人PTSD或ASD的互联网认知行为疗法(iCBT)进行了健康技术评估,包括有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助iCBT对PTSD或ADS的预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用ROBIS评估了系统评价的偏倚风险,使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估了随机对照试验(rct)的偏倚风险,并根据分级建议评估、发展和评价(GRADE)工作组标准评估了证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,总结了iCBT治疗成人PTSD或ASD的成本效益的经济证据。我们没有对成人PTSD患者的iCBT进行初步的经济评估,因为现有的成本效用分析直接适用于本研究问题。我们没有对成人ASD患者的iCBT进行初步的经济评估,因为这方面的临床证据有限,而且iCBT治疗PTSD的证据可能可以推广到有进展为PTSD风险的ASD患者的iCBT。我们分析了未来5年安大略省为成年PTSD或ASD患者提供iCBT公共资金的预算影响。为了了解iCBT对PTSD的潜在价值,我们回顾了有关患者偏好和价值观的相关文献,并与有PTSD经历的人交谈,探讨他们的价值观、需求和优先事项。结果:我们没有发现使用iCBT预防PTSD或使用iCBT治疗ASD的研究,也没有直接比较iCBT与面对面CBT治疗PTSD的研究。我们纳入了一项使用iCBT治疗PTSD的系统综述(10项随机对照试验,N = 720)。总体而言,iCBT比等候名单(等待iCBT)或单独的常规护理更有效地降低PTSD症状的严重程度(标准化平均差[SMD] = -0.60 [95% CI -0.97至-0.24];N = 560, 8个随机对照试验)(评分:非常低)。在降低PTSD症状严重程度方面,网络提供的CBT并不比非CBT网络提供的干预更有效(SMD = -0.08[-0.52至0.35];N = 82, 2个随机对照试验)(评分:非常低)。我们确定了一项关于成人创伤后应激障碍iCBT成本效益的经济评估。对于患有创伤后应激障碍的成年人,与常规治疗相比,iCBT被发现占主导地位(即,成本更低,效果更有效)。该模型采用了加拿大公共卫生保健支付者的视角,在模型结构、时间范围或模型输入来源方面没有重大限制。在未来5年,安大略省iCBT的年度预算影响范围从第一年的243万美元到第五年的237万美元不等,未来5年的总额外成本为1653万美元。如果仅考虑治疗费用,年度预算影响范围从第一年的额外337万美元到第五年的1784万美元不等,未来5年的总额外费用为5261万美元。我们对患者偏好的定量文献回顾发现,成年PTSD患者可能会将iCBT作为一种普遍可接受的治疗形式,但由于研究随访不完整,以及治疗师-患者关系的性质和程度存在差异,因此证据存在不确定性。我们采访的10个人都被诊断出患有创伤后应激障碍。他们报告了抑郁症对生活质量的负面影响,包括管理日常活动、人际关系和就业方面的困难。参与者认为iCBT有助于控制他们的PTSD症状,但强调将其与面对面的CBT相结合的重要性。然而,创伤后应激障碍服务的等待时间很长,而且对没有私人保险的人来说,自付费用可能是一个障碍。结论:与等候名单或常规治疗相比,互联网提供的CBT可能会减轻PTSD症状的严重程度,但证据非常不确定,与在线提供的非CBT干预相比,iCBT可能对改善PTSD症状几乎没有影响,但证据也非常不确定。对于患有创伤后应激障碍的成年人,iCBT可能比常规治疗更具成本效益。我们估计,在未来5年里,安大略省的iCBT公共资金将导致每年237万至243万美元的额外成本。创伤后应激障碍患者似乎普遍认为iCBT是一种可接受的治疗选择。与我们交谈过的PTSD患者认为iCBT是有效的,并建议将其与面对面的心理治疗相结合。
{"title":"Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or Acute Stress Disorder: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder (ASD) are mental health conditions that may emerge following a frightening or traumatic event in a person's life. We conducted a health technology assessment of internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for adults with PTSD or ASD, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding iCBT for PTSD or ADS, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of systematic reviews using ROBIS and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 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 to summarize the economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of iCBT for adults with PTSD or ASD. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation on iCBT for adults with PTSD, as an existing cost-utility analysis is directly applicable to this research question. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation on iCBT for adults with ASD, as there is limited clinical evidence on this topic and because evidence on iCBT for PTSD may be generalizable to iCBT for ASD at risk of progressing to PTSD. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding iCBT for adults with PTSD or ASD in Ontario over the next 5 years.To contextualize the potential value of iCBT for PTSD, we reviewed relevant literature on patients' preferences and values and spoke with people who have lived experience with PTSD to explore their values, needs, and priorities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified no studies on the use of iCBT for prevention of PTSD or studies on the use of iCBT to treat ASD, nor studies that directly compared iCBT with face-to-face CBT for the treatment of PTSD. We included one systematic review of the use of iCBT to treat PTSD (10 RCTs, N = 720). Overall, iCBT is more effective than wait-list (waiting for iCBT) or usual care alone for reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.60 [95% CI -0.97 to -0.24]; N = 560, 8 RCTs) (GRADE: Very low). Internet-delivered CBT is not more effective than non-CBT internet-delivered interventions for reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms (SMD = -0.08 [-0.52 to 0.35]; N = 82, 2 RCTs) (GRADE: Very low).We identified one economic evaluation on the cost-effectiveness of iCBT for adults with PTSD. For adults with PTSD, iCBT was found to be dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) compared with usual care. The model used a Canadian public health care payer perspective, and there were no major limitations to the model structure, time horizon, or source of model inputs. The annual budget impact of publicly funding iCBT in Ontario","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 9","pages":"1-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8398719/pdf/ohtas-21-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39419868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Use of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and N-Terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) as Diagnostic Tests in Adults With Suspected Heart Failure: A Health Technology Assessment. 使用b型利钠肽(BNP)和n端proBNP (NT-proBNP)作为成人疑似心力衰竭的诊断试验:一项健康技术评估
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-05-06 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome that usually presents with breathlessness, leg edema, and fatigue. Clinically measurable natriuretic neurohormones such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) are elevated in people with heart failure. We conducted a health technology assessment of BNP and NT-proBNP tests for people with suspected heart failure, which included an evaluation of diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding BNP and NT-proBNP tests, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a literature search of previously published systematic reviews of the clinical evidence. We conducted an overview of reviews and included only reviews with a low risk of bias as assessed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool (ROBIS). We excluded any reviews where we found 100% overlap of included primary studies and selected systematic reviews or health technology assessments published after 2006 for inclusion.We performed an economic literature review of BNP and NT-proBNP testing in people with suspected heart failure. Medical and health economic databases were searched from database inception until July 25, 2019. Next, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP and NT-proBNP based on the published economic literature. We transferred the cost-effectiveness results of two applicable, recent economic evaluations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to the Ontario setting in lieu of conducting de novo primary economic evaluations. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding BNP and NT-proBNP tests in people with suspected heart failure in Ontario over the next 5 years.To contextualize the potential value of BNP and NT-proBNP testing, we spoke with people with suspected heart failure.

Results: We included eight systematic reviews in the clinical evidence review. B-type natriuretic peptides and NT-proBNP had a high pooled sensitivity (80% to 94% and 86% to 96%, respectively; strength of evidence: high) and a low pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.08-0.30 and 0.09-0.23, respectively; strength of evidence: not reported) within varying thresholds or cut points and settings, as reported in seven systematic reviews. In one systematic review, when BNP or NT-proBNP was used in the diagnosis of heart failure in the emergency department (ED), there was a decrease in the mean length of hospital stay (-1.22 days; confidence interval [CI] -2.31 to -0.14; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] Working Group criteria: Moderate). B-type natriuretic peptide testing did not reduce hospital admission rates (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82; CI: 0.67-1.01; GRADE: Moderate), 30-day hospital readmission rates (OR: 0.88; CI: 0.64-1,20; GRADE: Moderate), or hospital mortality rates (OR: 0.96; CI: 0.65-1.41; GRADE: Moderate). No sy

背景:心力衰竭是一种复杂的临床综合征,通常表现为呼吸困难、腿部水肿和疲劳。临床可测量的利钠神经激素,如b型利钠肽(BNP)和n端proBNP (NT-proBNP)在心力衰竭患者中升高。我们对疑似心力衰竭患者的BNP和NT-proBNP检测进行了健康技术评估,包括诊断准确性、临床影响、成本效益、公共资助BNP和NT-proBNP检测的预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。方法:我们对先前发表的临床证据系统综述进行了文献检索。我们对文献进行了综述,并仅纳入了使用系统评价中偏倚风险工具(ROBIS)评估的偏倚风险较低的文献。我们排除了所有我们发现纳入的初步研究与2006年以后发表的选定的系统评价或卫生技术评估100%重叠的综述。我们对疑似心力衰竭患者的BNP和NT-proBNP检测进行了经济文献回顾。检索自数据库建立至2019年7月25日的医疗卫生经济数据库。接下来,我们根据已发表的经济学文献评估了BNP和NT-proBNP的成本效益。我们将国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)两项适用的近期经济评估的成本效益结果转移到安大略省,以代替进行从头开始的初级经济评估。我们还估计了未来5年安大略省对疑似心力衰竭患者进行BNP和NT-proBNP测试的公共资助的预算影响。为了了解BNP和NT-proBNP检测的潜在价值,我们采访了疑似心力衰竭的患者。结果:我们在临床证据综述中纳入了8项系统综述。b型利钠肽和NT-proBNP具有较高的综合敏感性(分别为80% ~ 94%和86% ~ 96%);证据强度:高)和低合并负似然比(分别为0.08-0.30和0.09-0.23;证据强度:未报告)在不同的阈值或切点和设置内,如七次系统评价所报告的。在一项系统综述中,当在急诊科(ED)使用BNP或NT-proBNP诊断心力衰竭时,平均住院时间(-1.22天;置信区间[CI] -2.31 ~ -0.14;评估、发展和评价[GRADE]工作组标准:中等)。b型利钠肽检测没有降低住院率(优势比[OR]: 0.82;置信区间:0.67—-1.01;分级:中度),30天住院再入院率(OR: 0.88;置信区间:0.64 - 1 20;GRADE:中度)或医院死亡率(or: 0.96;置信区间:0.65—-1.41;成绩:中等)。没有系统的评价被确定为解决在社区环境中使用BNP对临床结果的影响。我们的经济文献综述发现,共有12项研究评估了BNP或NT-proBNP检测在疑似心力衰竭患者中的成本效益。这些研究表明,BNP或NT-proBNP测试在标准临床调查之外使用时,在不同国家(包括加拿大)和环境中要么占主导地位(成本更低,更有效),要么具有成本效益。NICE进行的两项经济评估被认为适用于我们的研究问题,并且方法质量很高。根据NICE两项经济评估的转移结果,我们得出结论,BNP和NT-proBNP在安大略省急诊科环境中极有可能具有成本效益,而NT-proBNP在社区护理环境中极有可能具有成本效益。我们的预算影响分析估计,在未来5年内,公共资助BNP和NT-proBNP测试将导致ED的额外成本为3800万美元(每次测试的成本为75美元),并在社区护理方面节省2000万美元(每次测试的成本为28美元)。我们得到了采访参与者对BNP或NT-proBNP诊断测试的强烈支持。主要原因是人们认为得到更快诊断的潜在好处。从诊断到治疗的整个过程对患者和护理人员以及远离二级或三级保健机构的人来说是一种沉重的情感负担。更早的诊断可以让病人在医院接受治疗,更好地控制他们潜在的致命症状和状况。结论:b型利钠肽和NT-proBNP检测灵敏度高,阴性似然比低,提示任一利钠肽浓度在适当切点内均可高度置信度排除心力衰竭的存在。 此外,在急诊科进行BNP或NT-proBNP检测和常规护理可能会使住院时间减少至少1天,但可能在医院死亡率、30天再入院率或住院率方面几乎没有差异。根据已发表的经济学文献,我们预计在安大略省疑似心力衰竭的患者中,除了标准临床调查外,还使用BNP或NT-proBNP测试作为排除试验是具有成本效益的。如果BNP和NT-proBNP测试在安大略省是公共资助的,我们估计会有额外的费用在急诊科设置(由于增加心力衰竭的检测)和节省社区护理(由于减少转诊到超声心动图和心脏病专家)。我们采访的人强烈支持BNP和NT-proBNP测试,理由是更快、更准确的诊断可以减少误诊、压力和患者和护理人员的负担。
{"title":"Use of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and N-Terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) as Diagnostic Tests in Adults With Suspected Heart Failure: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome that usually presents with breathlessness, leg edema, and fatigue. Clinically measurable natriuretic neurohormones such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) are elevated in people with heart failure. We conducted a health technology assessment of BNP and NT-proBNP tests for people with suspected heart failure, which included an evaluation of diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding BNP and NT-proBNP tests, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a literature search of previously published systematic reviews of the clinical evidence. We conducted an overview of reviews and included only reviews with a low risk of bias as assessed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool (ROBIS). We excluded any reviews where we found 100% overlap of included primary studies and selected systematic reviews or health technology assessments published after 2006 for inclusion.We performed an economic literature review of BNP and NT-proBNP testing in people with suspected heart failure. Medical and health economic databases were searched from database inception until July 25, 2019. Next, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP and NT-proBNP based on the published economic literature. We transferred the cost-effectiveness results of two applicable, recent economic evaluations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to the Ontario setting in lieu of conducting de novo primary economic evaluations. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding BNP and NT-proBNP tests in people with suspected heart failure in Ontario over the next 5 years.To contextualize the potential value of BNP and NT-proBNP testing, we spoke with people with suspected heart failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included eight systematic reviews in the clinical evidence review. B-type natriuretic peptides and NT-proBNP had a high pooled sensitivity (80% to 94% and 86% to 96%, respectively; strength of evidence: high) and a low pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.08-0.30 and 0.09-0.23, respectively; strength of evidence: not reported) within varying thresholds or cut points and settings, as reported in seven systematic reviews. In one systematic review, when BNP or NT-proBNP was used in the diagnosis of heart failure in the emergency department (ED), there was a decrease in the mean length of hospital stay (-1.22 days; confidence interval [CI] -2.31 to -0.14; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] Working Group criteria: Moderate). B-type natriuretic peptide testing did not reduce hospital admission rates (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82; CI: 0.67-1.01; GRADE: Moderate), 30-day hospital readmission rates (OR: 0.88; CI: 0.64-1,20; GRADE: Moderate), or hospital mortality rates (OR: 0.96; CI: 0.65-1.41; GRADE: Moderate). No sy","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 2","pages":"1-125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8129637/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39048937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Proton Beam Therapy for Cancer in Children and Adults: A Health Technology Assessment. 质子束治疗儿童和成人癌症:健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-05-06 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Proton beam therapy has potential to reduce late toxicity in cancer treatment by reducing the risk of damage to surrounding healthy tissues. We conducted a health technology assessment of proton beam therapy, compared with photon therapy, for children and adults with cancer requiring radiotherapy. Our assessment included an evaluation of safety, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding the construction and use of proton beam therapy in Ontario, 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, high quality, and relevant to our research question. We complemented the chosen systematic review (published in 2019) with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) 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 also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding proton beam therapy in cancer patients in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of proton beam therapy, we spoke with 10 people with cancer (or their caregivers) who had either received or were considering proton beam therapy.

Results: We included one systematic review of the clinical evidence reporting on 215 publications on proton beam therapy in children and adults across 19 tumour categories/conditions. Compared with photon therapy, proton beam therapy may result in fewer adverse events but similar overall survival and progression-free survival in children with brain tumours (GRADE: Low), adults with esophageal cancer (GRADE: Low to Very low), head and neck cancer (GRADE: Low to Very low), and prostate cancer (GRADE: Low). Proton beam therapy may result in similar adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival in adults with brain tumours (GRADE: Low), breast cancer (GRADE: Low), gastrointestinal cancer (GRADE: Very low), liver cancer (GRADE: Moderate to Very low), lung cancer (GRADE: Moderate to Very low), and ocular tumours (GRADE: Low). There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proton beam therapy in other pediatric tumours, as well as bladder cancer, bone cancer, lymphoma, and benign tumours in adults.The economic evidence suggests that proton beam therapy may be cost-effective in pediatric populations with medulloblastoma; however, studies were based on limited clinical evidence. In other indications, the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy is unclear. The 5-year budget impact of funding a four-room proton beam therapy centre in Ontario would

背景:质子束治疗通过降低对周围健康组织损伤的风险,有可能降低癌症治疗的晚期毒性。我们对需要放射治疗的儿童和成人癌症患者进行了质子束治疗与光子治疗的健康技术评估。我们的评估包括安全性、有效性、成本效益、安大略省公共资金建设和使用质子束治疗的预算影响以及患者的偏好和价值观。方法:我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索,以检索系统综述,并从一篇最近的、高质量的、与我们的研究问题相关的综述中选择并报告了结果。我们对所选的系统综述(发表于2019年)进行了文献检索,以确定综述后发表的随机对照试验。我们使用系统评价偏倚风险(ROBIS)工具评估每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并分析了安大略省公共资助质子束治疗对癌症患者的预算影响。为了了解质子束治疗的潜在价值,我们采访了10位已经接受或正在考虑质子束治疗的癌症患者(或他们的护理人员)。结果:我们纳入了一项系统的临床证据综述,报告了215篇关于质子束治疗儿童和成人19种肿瘤类别/情况的出版物。与光子治疗相比,质子束治疗可能导致更少的不良事件,但在儿童脑肿瘤(GRADE:低)、成人食管癌(GRADE:低至极低)、头颈癌(GRADE:低至极低)和前列腺癌(GRADE:低)中,总生存期和无进展生存期相似。质子束治疗在成人脑肿瘤(GRADE:低)、乳腺癌(GRADE:低)、胃肠道癌(GRADE:极低)、肝癌(GRADE:中度至极低)、肺癌(GRADE:中度至极低)和眼肿瘤(GRADE:低)患者中可能导致类似的不良事件、总生存期和无进展生存期。没有足够的证据来评估质子束治疗在其他儿科肿瘤、膀胱癌、骨癌、淋巴瘤和成人良性肿瘤中的有效性和安全性。经济证据表明,质子束治疗小儿髓母细胞瘤可能具有成本效益;然而,这些研究基于有限的临床证据。在其他适应症中,质子束治疗的成本效益尚不清楚。资助安大略省一个四室质子束治疗中心的5年预算影响将为1.248亿美元,导致每位患者的费用为48 217美元,包括资本投资和运营费用,而目前将患者送往国外的平均费用为326 800美元。资助一个单室质子束治疗中心,用于治疗选定的安大略省患者和来自加拿大其他省份的患者,在未来5年的预算影响较低,为1520万美元。如果我们假设建造质子束治疗中心将取代新的光子治疗中心,那么5年的预算影响可以进一步减少到大约1300万美元(一个房间)或9480万美元(四个房间)。我们采访的接受过质子束治疗的人对治疗反应积极。他们选择质子束治疗是因为他们相信它比光子治疗更安全,长期副作用也更少。然而,在美国获得质子束治疗通常具有挑战性,有后勤和情感负担。病人和家属很重视在家人和其他情感支持附近接受有效治疗的机会。结论:质子束治疗可能与传统放射治疗一样有效,而且副作用可能更少,特别是对于患有脑肿瘤的儿童和患有某些类型癌症的成人。根据已发表的经济证据,质子束治疗与光子治疗相比,治疗成神经管细胞瘤的儿童可能更具成本效益,但对于患有其他临床适应症的儿童和成人,成本效益尚不清楚。我们估计,公共资助安大略省的质子束治疗中心将在未来5年内产生1.248亿美元的额外费用,但与目前的支出相比,每位患者的费用减少了6到7倍。与我们交谈过的癌症患者和护理人员普遍支持在安大略省进行质子束治疗。
{"title":"Proton Beam Therapy for Cancer in Children and Adults: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proton beam therapy has potential to reduce late toxicity in cancer treatment by reducing the risk of damage to surrounding healthy tissues. We conducted a health technology assessment of proton beam therapy, compared with photon therapy, for children and adults with cancer requiring radiotherapy. Our assessment included an evaluation of safety, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding the construction and use of proton beam therapy in Ontario, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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, high quality, and relevant to our research question. We complemented the chosen systematic review (published in 2019) with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) 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 also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding proton beam therapy in cancer patients in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of proton beam therapy, we spoke with 10 people with cancer (or their caregivers) who had either received or were considering proton beam therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included one systematic review of the clinical evidence reporting on 215 publications on proton beam therapy in children and adults across 19 tumour categories/conditions. Compared with photon therapy, proton beam therapy may result in fewer adverse events but similar overall survival and progression-free survival in children with brain tumours (GRADE: Low), adults with esophageal cancer (GRADE: Low to Very low), head and neck cancer (GRADE: Low to Very low), and prostate cancer (GRADE: Low). Proton beam therapy may result in similar adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival in adults with brain tumours (GRADE: Low), breast cancer (GRADE: Low), gastrointestinal cancer (GRADE: Very low), liver cancer (GRADE: Moderate to Very low), lung cancer (GRADE: Moderate to Very low), and ocular tumours (GRADE: Low). There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proton beam therapy in other pediatric tumours, as well as bladder cancer, bone cancer, lymphoma, and benign tumours in adults.The economic evidence suggests that proton beam therapy may be cost-effective in pediatric populations with medulloblastoma; however, studies were based on limited clinical evidence. In other indications, the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy is unclear. The 5-year budget impact of funding a four-room proton beam therapy centre in Ontario would","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 1","pages":"1-142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130814/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39034196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Vaginal Pessaries for Pelvic Organ Prolapse or Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Health Technology Assessment. 阴道托用于盆腔器官脱垂或压力性尿失禁:一项健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-05-06 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the downward descent of the female pelvic organs into or through the vagina. The symptom that most strongly correlates with and is most specific for POP is a feeling of vaginal bulging. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is an involuntary loss of urine upon physical exertion or sneezing or coughing. Conservative (non-surgical) treatment options for both conditions include vaginal pessaries. We conducted a health technology assessment of vaginal pessaries for the treatment of POP and SUI, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries, 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 ROBIS, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale 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 10-year horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries for individuals with pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence in Ontario. We explored the underlying values, needs, and priorities of those who have lived experience with POP and/or SUI, as well as the preferences and perceptions of both patients and providers of vaginal pessaries.

Results: We included 15 studies in the clinical evidence review. Compared with no treatment for people with SUI, pessaries were associated with a significant improvement in some symptoms at 14 days follow-up (SUI subscore of Urinary Symptom Profile, mean difference -2.20; 95% CI -3.47 to -0.93; GRADE: Very low). Compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), pessaries were associated with no difference in improvement at 12 months follow-up for some symptoms (Urinary Distress Inventory subscale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16; GRADE: Low). For people with POP, pessaries were associated with a significant improvement in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score and in sexual function compared with PFMT plus feedback/electrical stimulation/lifestyle advice at 12- and 24-month follow ups (GRADE: Low). Pessary continuation rate at 12 months follow up was reported to be 60% (44/74 patients) (GRADE: Very low).When evaluating various POP and SUI treatments in sequential order, pessaries were within the most cost-effective treatment sequence; therefore, it is likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating POP and SUI. There was a high degree of certainty that pessaries were cost-effective in a population with POP, and a moderate degree of certainty in a population with

背景:盆腔器官脱垂(POP)是女性盆腔器官进入或通过阴道向下下降。与POP最密切相关且最具体的症状是阴道鼓胀感。压力性尿失禁(SUI)是在体力消耗或打喷嚏或咳嗽时不自主的尿失禁。这两种情况的保守(非手术)治疗选择包括阴道托。我们对阴道托套治疗POP和SUI的卫生技术进行了评估,包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助阴道托套的预算影响以及患者的偏好和价值观进行了评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用ROBIS、Cochrane偏倚风险工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估了每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估了证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从公共付款人的角度进行了10年的成本效用分析。我们还分析了安大略省对盆腔器官脱垂和/或压力性尿失禁患者使用阴道托的公共资助对预算的影响。我们探讨了那些有过POP和/或SUI生活经历的人的潜在价值、需求和优先事项,以及患者和阴道托的提供者的偏好和看法。结果:我们纳入了15项临床证据综述。与未治疗的SUI患者相比,在14天的随访中,子宫托与某些症状的显著改善相关(尿症状谱SUI亚评分,平均差-2.20;95% CI -3.47 ~ -0.93;等级:非常低)。与盆底肌肉训练(PFMT)相比,在12个月的随访中,子宫托与某些症状的改善没有差异(盆底窘迫量表的尿窘迫量表,风险比= 0.86;95% CI 0.64 ~ 1.16;等级:低)。对于POP患者,在12个月和24个月的随访中,与PFMT加反馈/电刺激/生活方式建议相比,子宫托与盆腔器官脱垂困扰量表评分和性功能显著改善相关(等级:低)。据报道,12个月随访时的子宫延续率为60%(44/74例患者)(等级:非常低)。当按顺序评估各种POP和SUI治疗时,子宫托在最具成本效益的治疗序列内;因此,它可能是治疗POP和SUI的一种经济有效的干预措施。子宫托在POP患者中具有较高的成本效益,在SUI患者中具有中等程度的成本效益。当将子宫托和手术的治疗顺序与单独手术进行比较时,在POP队列中,子宫托治疗顺序优于手术,在SUI队列中,每获得QALY,子宫托的增量成本-效果比(ICER)为1,033美元。在未来5年,安大略省公共资助阴道托的年度预算影响从第一年的30万美元到第五年的50万美元不等,用于POP,从第一年的20万美元到第五年的30万美元不等。我们在定量证据审查中纳入了一项研究,并与29人进行了直接的患者接触。证据表明,患者的偏好各不相同,患者接受他们所选择的治疗方案的风险。我们采访的24位直接使用过阴道托的人报告说,他们的POP和/或SUI限制了他们的社交活动,限制了他们的活动水平,造成了巨大的情感损失。由于副作用和手术失败率,许多人对手术犹豫不决甚至害怕。大多数人报告说,子宫托缓解了他们的大部分或全部症状,使他们能够恢复正常的日常活动。然而,等待子宫内膜移植的时间可能长达2年,而且对于没有延长保险的人来说,自付费用可能是一个障碍。结论:对于SUI患者,与不治疗相比,阴道托垫可以改善症状,但证据非常不确定。与PFMT相比,子宫托可能导致SUI症状的长期改善几乎没有差异。与PFMT相比,对于POP患者,子宫托可能会改善一些长期症状,以及性功能。对于有症状的POP和SUI患者,阴道托可能是一种具有成本效益的干预措施,可以在阶梯式护理模式中使用(在当前治疗无效后进行一系列干预措施)。我们估计,公共资助阴道托在安大略省将导致总共5年的预算影响$2。 POP为1亿美元,SUI为130万美元。患有POP和/或SUI的人报告说,必要的使用是一种有效的治疗选择,以控制他们的症状。
{"title":"Vaginal Pessaries for Pelvic Organ Prolapse or Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the downward descent of the female pelvic organs into or through the vagina. The symptom that most strongly correlates with and is most specific for POP is a feeling of vaginal bulging. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is an involuntary loss of urine upon physical exertion or sneezing or coughing. Conservative (non-surgical) treatment options for both conditions include vaginal pessaries. We conducted a health technology assessment of vaginal pessaries for the treatment of POP and SUI, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using ROBIS, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale 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 10-year horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries for individuals with pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence in Ontario. We explored the underlying values, needs, and priorities of those who have lived experience with POP and/or SUI, as well as the preferences and perceptions of both patients and providers of vaginal pessaries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 15 studies in the clinical evidence review. Compared with no treatment for people with SUI, pessaries were associated with a significant improvement in some symptoms at 14 days follow-up (SUI subscore of Urinary Symptom Profile, mean difference -2.20; 95% CI -3.47 to -0.93; GRADE: Very low). Compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), pessaries were associated with no difference in improvement at 12 months follow-up for some symptoms (Urinary Distress Inventory subscale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16; GRADE: Low). For people with POP, pessaries were associated with a significant improvement in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score and in sexual function compared with PFMT plus feedback/electrical stimulation/lifestyle advice at 12- and 24-month follow ups (GRADE: Low). Pessary continuation rate at 12 months follow up was reported to be 60% (44/74 patients) (GRADE: Very low).When evaluating various POP and SUI treatments in sequential order, pessaries were within the most cost-effective treatment sequence; therefore, it is likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating POP and SUI. There was a high degree of certainty that pessaries were cost-effective in a population with POP, and a moderate degree of certainty in a population with","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 3","pages":"1-155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8129636/pdf/ohtas-21-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39048939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for People With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Health Technology Assessment. 反复经颅磁刺激治疗难治性抑郁症:一项健康技术评估
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2021-05-06 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01

Background: Major depression is one of the most diagnosed mental illnesses in Canada. Generally, people are treated successfully with antidepressants or psychotherapy, but some people do not respond to these treatments (called treatment-resistant depression [TRD]). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivers magnetic pulses to stimulate the areas of the brain associated with mood regulation. Several modalities of rTMS exist (e.g., high frequency rTMS, intermittent theta burst stimulation [iTBS], deep transcranial magnetic stimulation). We conducted a health technology assessment of rTMS for people with TRD, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding rTMS, 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 Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and Cochrane Risk of Bias for Randomized Controlled Trials 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 3-year horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding rTMS for people with TRD in Ontario. To assess the potential value of rTMS, we spoke with people who have TRD. Seven rTMS modalities were considered: low-frequency (1 Hz) stimulation, high-frequency (10-20 Hz) stimulation, unilateral stimulation, bilateral stimulation, iTBS, continuous theta burst stimulation, and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Results: We included 58 primary studies, 9 systematic reviews, and 1 network meta-analysis in the clinical evidence review. Most rTMS modalities were more effective than sham treatment for all outcomes (GRADE: Moderate to High). All rTMS modalities were similar to one another in response and remission rates (GRADE: not reported) and were similar to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in response and remission rates (GRADE: Moderate). Moreover, in both the reference case and scenario analyses, two rTMS modalities (rTMS or iTBS), followed by ECT when patients did not respond to initial treatment, were less expensive and more effective than ECT alone. They were cost-effective compared with pharmacotherapy alone at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The annual budget impact of publicly funding rTMS would range from $9.3 million in year 1 to $15.76 million in year 5, for a total of $63.2 million over the next 5 years. People with TRD we spoke with reported that their experiences were generally favourable, and their attitudes toward rTMS were positive. Similarly, psychiatrists had positive attitudes toward and acceptance of rTMS

背景:重度抑郁症是加拿大诊断最多的精神疾病之一。一般来说,人们可以通过抗抑郁药或心理治疗成功治疗,但有些人对这些治疗没有反应(称为治疗难治性抑郁症[TRD])。重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)传递磁脉冲来刺激大脑中与情绪调节有关的区域。rTMS有几种模式(例如,高频rTMS,间歇性θ波爆发刺激[iTBS],深经颅磁刺激)。我们对TRD患者的rTMS进行了卫生技术评估,其中包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助rTMS的预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用系统评价偏倚风险(ROBIS)工具和Cochrane随机对照试验偏倚风险评估每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从公共付款人的角度进行了3年的成本效用分析。我们还分析了安大略省为TRD患者提供公共资助rTMS的5年预算影响。为了评估rTMS的潜在价值,我们采访了患有TRD的人。考虑了七种rTMS模式:低频(1hz)刺激、高频(10- 20hz)刺激、单侧刺激、双侧刺激、iTBS、连续θ波爆发刺激和深经颅磁刺激。结果:我们纳入了58项初步研究、9项系统评价和1项网络荟萃分析。大多数rTMS模式在所有结果中都比假治疗更有效(等级:中等至高)。所有rTMS模式在反应率和缓解率方面彼此相似(GRADE:未报道),并且在反应率和缓解率方面与电痉挛疗法(ECT)相似(GRADE:中度)。此外,在参考病例和情景分析中,两种rTMS模式(rTMS或iTBS),当患者对初始治疗无反应时,随后进行ECT,比单独ECT更便宜,更有效。与单独的药物治疗相比,它们具有成本效益,每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的支付意愿为50,000美元。公共资助rTMS的年度预算影响将从第一年的930万美元到第五年的1576万美元不等,未来五年总计为6320万美元。与我们交谈的TRD患者报告说,他们的经历总体上是有利的,他们对rTMS的态度是积极的。同样,精神科医生对rTMS也有积极的态度和接受度。我们对偏好的定量文献回顾显示,精神科医生对rTMS的认识存在一些差距,这可能受到他们在rTMS方面的培训水平的影响。结论:大多数rTMS方式在所有结果上可能比假rTMS更有效。所有的rTMS模式都与ECT相似,并且在反应率和缓解率上彼此相似。与单独ECT相比,两种rTMS模式(高频rTMS和iTBS),在必要时在阶梯式护理途径中进行ECT治疗,对治疗成人TRD更便宜,更有效。这些类型的rTMS(高频rTMS和iTBS)与单独的药物治疗相比具有成本效益,每个QALY的支付意愿为50,000美元。安大略省在未来5年内为治疗成人TRD的rTMS(高频rTMS和iTBS)提供公共资金将增加6320万美元的总费用。TRD患者对rTMS有积极的体验和态度。
{"title":"Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for People With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Major depression is one of the most diagnosed mental illnesses in Canada. Generally, people are treated successfully with antidepressants or psychotherapy, but some people do not respond to these treatments (called treatment-resistant depression [TRD]). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivers magnetic pulses to stimulate the areas of the brain associated with mood regulation. Several modalities of rTMS exist (e.g., high frequency rTMS, intermittent theta burst stimulation [iTBS], deep transcranial magnetic stimulation). We conducted a health technology assessment of rTMS for people with TRD, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding rTMS, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and Cochrane Risk of Bias for Randomized Controlled Trials 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 3-year horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding rTMS for people with TRD in Ontario. To assess the potential value of rTMS, we spoke with people who have TRD. Seven rTMS modalities were considered: low-frequency (1 Hz) stimulation, high-frequency (10-20 Hz) stimulation, unilateral stimulation, bilateral stimulation, iTBS, continuous theta burst stimulation, and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 58 primary studies, 9 systematic reviews, and 1 network meta-analysis in the clinical evidence review. Most rTMS modalities were more effective than sham treatment for all outcomes (GRADE: Moderate to High). All rTMS modalities were similar to one another in response and remission rates (GRADE: not reported) and were similar to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in response and remission rates (GRADE: Moderate). Moreover, in both the reference case and scenario analyses, two rTMS modalities (rTMS or iTBS), followed by ECT when patients did not respond to initial treatment, were less expensive and more effective than ECT alone. They were cost-effective compared with pharmacotherapy alone at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The annual budget impact of publicly funding rTMS would range from $9.3 million in year 1 to $15.76 million in year 5, for a total of $63.2 million over the next 5 years. People with TRD we spoke with reported that their experiences were generally favourable, and their attitudes toward rTMS were positive. Similarly, psychiatrists had positive attitudes toward and acceptance of rTMS","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 4","pages":"1-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8129638/pdf/ohtas-21-4.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39048940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis at Low Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment. 经导管主动脉瓣植入术治疗严重主动脉瓣狭窄低手术风险:一项健康技术评估
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-11-02 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure. We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of TAVI for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We used the 2016 Health Quality Ontario HTA on TAVI2 as a source of eligible studies and performed a systematic literature search for studies published since the 2016 review. Eligible primary studies identified both through the 2016 HTA and through our complementary literature search were used in a de novo analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.An applicable, previously conducted cost-effectiveness analysis was available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at low surgical risk in Ontario. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients for TAVI. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a review to evaluate the qualitative literature on patient and provider preferences and values for TAVI. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI, we spoke with people with severe aortic valve stenosis.

Results: We identified two randomized controlled trials that compared TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Both studies have an ongoing follow-up of 10 years, but 1-year and limited 2-year follow-up results are currently available. At 30 days, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a slightly lower risk of mortality (risk difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5% to -0.1%, GRADE: Moderate) and disabling stroke (risk difference -0.8%, 95% CI -1.8% to -0.2%, GRADE: Moderate), and resulted in more patients with symptom improvement (risk difference 11.8%, 95% CI 8.2% to 15.5%, GRADE: High) and in a greater improvement in quality of life (GRADE: High). At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality (GRADE: Low), although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke (GRADE: Moderate). Both TAVI and SAVR resulted in a similar improvement in symptoms and quality of life at 1 year (GRADE: Moderate). Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others.Device-related costs for TAVI (about $25,000) are higher than for SAVR (about $6,000). A published cost-effectiveness a

背景:手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)是严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者的常规治疗方法,手术风险低。经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)是一种侵入性较小的手术。我们对低手术风险的严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者进行了TAVI的健康技术评估(HTA),包括有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助TAVI的预算影响以及患者的偏好和价值观的评估。方法:我们使用2016年安大略省卫生质量评估TAVI2作为符合条件的研究来源,并对自2016年评价以来发表的研究进行了系统的文献检索。通过2016年HTA和我们的补充文献检索确定的符合条件的主要研究用于从头分析。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。一个适用的,先前进行的成本效益分析是可用的,因此我们没有进行主要的经济评估。我们分析了公共资助TAVI对安大略省低手术风险人群的预算影响。我们还对TAVI患者偏好和价值的定量证据进行了文献调查。加拿大卫生药品和技术机构(CADTH)进行了一项审查,以评估关于患者和提供者对TAVI的偏好和价值的定性文献。为了了解TAVI的潜在价值,我们采访了严重主动脉瓣狭窄的患者。结果:我们确定了两项随机对照试验,比较了TAVI(经股途径)和SAVR在低手术风险的严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者中的应用。两项研究都有10年的持续随访,但目前有1年和有限的2年随访结果。在30天,与SAVR相比,TAVI的死亡率(风险差-0.8%,95%置信区间[CI] -1.5%至-0.1%,GRADE:中度)和致残性卒中(风险差-0.8%,95% CI -1.8%至-0.2%,GRADE:中度)风险略低,并导致更多患者症状改善(风险差11.8%,95% CI 8.2%至15.5%,GRADE:高)和更大的生活质量改善(GRADE:高)。1年时,TAVI和SAVR的死亡率相似(GRADE: Low),尽管TAVI可能导致致残性卒中的风险稍低(GRADE: Moderate)。TAVI和SAVR在1年时对症状和生活质量的改善相似(GRADE: Moderate)。与SAVR相比,TAVI的某些并发症风险较高,而其他并发症风险较低。TAVI的设备相关费用(约25,000美元)高于SAVR(约6,000美元)。从安大略省卫生部的角度进行的一项已发表的成本效益分析表明,TAVI比SAVR更昂贵,但平均而言,效果略好(即,它与质量调整生命年[QALYs]相关)。与SAVR相比,每个QALY的增量成本效益比(ICERs)分别为27,196美元和气球膨胀和自膨胀TAVI的59,641美元。气球膨胀式TAVI比自膨胀式TAVI成本更低(平均为2,330美元),效果略好(平均为0.02 QALY)。在三种干预措施中,气球膨胀TAVI最有可能具有成本效益。在53%和59%的模型迭代中,它是首选选项,每个QALY的支付意愿值分别为50,000美元和100,000美元。自扩展TAVI在少于10%的迭代中是首选的。在安大略省,公共资助TAVI的预算影响估计在未来5年内每年将增加500万至800万美元。随着设备价格的降低,预算影响可能会大大减少。我们没有发现任何定量或定性的证据表明患者的偏好和低风险手术组的价值。在混合或一般高危人群中,TAVI较SAVR具有侵入性小、恢复时间快的特点,患者对TAVI手术较为满意。低手术风险的严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者及其护理人员认为TAVI可最大限度地减少疼痛和恢复时间。大多数患有TAVI的患者比患有SAVR的患者恢复正常活动的速度更快。我们的直接患者和护理人员咨询表明TAVI优于SAVR。结论:在1年的随访期间,TAVI(经股路)和SAVR均能改善患者的症状和生活质量。与SAVR相比,TAVI手术的侵入性更小,术后30天的症状改善和生活质量更好。 TAVI程序也导致死亡率和30天致残性中风的小幅改善。1年后,TAVI和SAVR的死亡率相似,尽管TAVI可能导致致残性中风的风险略低。根据研究作者的说法,需要更长的随访时间来更好地了解TAVI瓣膜的持续时间,并得出关于TAVI与SAVR超过1年的长期结果的明确结论。对于手术风险低的患者,TAVI手术可能具有成本效益;然而,这一结果存在一些不确定性。我们估计,在未来5年内,为患有严重主动脉瓣狭窄且手术风险低的患者提供TAVI的额外公共资金将在500万至800万美元之间。在混合或一般高危人群中,与SAVR相比,TAVI的侵入性更小,恢复时间更快。
{"title":"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis at Low Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure. We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of TAVI for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the 2016 Health Quality Ontario HTA on TAVI<sup>2</sup> as a source of eligible studies and performed a systematic literature search for studies published since the 2016 review. Eligible primary studies identified both through the 2016 HTA and through our complementary literature search were used in a de novo analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.An applicable, previously conducted cost-effectiveness analysis was available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at low surgical risk in Ontario. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients for TAVI. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a review to evaluate the qualitative literature on patient and provider preferences and values for TAVI. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI, we spoke with people with severe aortic valve stenosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified two randomized controlled trials that compared TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Both studies have an ongoing follow-up of 10 years, but 1-year and limited 2-year follow-up results are currently available. At 30 days, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a slightly lower risk of mortality (risk difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5% to -0.1%, GRADE: Moderate) and disabling stroke (risk difference -0.8%, 95% CI -1.8% to -0.2%, GRADE: Moderate), and resulted in more patients with symptom improvement (risk difference 11.8%, 95% CI 8.2% to 15.5%, GRADE: High) and in a greater improvement in quality of life (GRADE: High). At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality (GRADE: Low), although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke (GRADE: Moderate). Both TAVI and SAVR resulted in a similar improvement in symptoms and quality of life at 1 year (GRADE: Moderate). Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others.Device-related costs for TAVI (about $25,000) are higher than for SAVR (about $6,000). A published cost-effectiveness a","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 14","pages":"1-148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670297/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38642792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1