首页 > 最新文献

Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series最新文献

英文 中文
Portable Normothermic Cardiac Perfusion System in Donation After Cardiocirculatory Death: A Health Technology Assessment. 便携式常温心脏灌注系统在心脏循环死亡后捐献中的应用:健康技术评估》。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Heart transplantation is the most effective treatment for people experiencing end-stage heart failure whose quality of life and life expectancy are unacceptable. However, there is a chronic shortage of donor hearts to meet the demand, so it is essential to expand the donor pool and increase supply. Heart donation mainly occurs after brain death (neurological determination of death [NDD]), but it may also be feasible after cardiocirculatory death (when the heart has stopped beating and there is no longer blood flow or a pulse), provided specialized preservation techniques are used. An investigational device, a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system, could make it possible to procure, preserve, and transport hearts donated after cardiocirculatory death (DCD). We conducted a health technology assessment of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system for the preservation and transportation of DCD hearts for adult transplantation. This included an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, value for money, and budget impact of publicly funding this system, as well as an evaluation of patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of the clinical literature published since 1998 that examined the clinical safety and effectiveness of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system for DCD heart transplantation. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also reviewed the economic evidence published during the same time period for the cost-effectiveness of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system for DCD hearts compared with cold storage for NDD hearts. We further estimated the 5-year net budget impact of publicly funding a normothermic cardiac perfusion system for DCD heart transplantation for adults on Ontario's waitlist. To contextualize the potential value of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system, we spoke with people waiting for a heart transplant, people who had received a heart transplant, and family members of organ donors.

Results: We screened 2,386 clinical citations. One study and two case reports met the inclusion criteria. The survival of recipients of DCD hearts procured with a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system did not differ significantly from the survival of recipients of hearts donated after NDD at 30 days or 90 days, nor was there a significant difference in cumulative survival at 1 year post-transplant (GRADE: Very Low). The occurrence of rejection and graft failure also did not significantly differ between the groups (GRADE: Very Low). Cardiac function in the early post-operative period was better in DCD hearts than NDD hearts (GRADE: Very Low). There were no differences in outcomes between DCD procurement techniques.The eco

背景:对于生活质量和预期寿命都无法接受的终末期心力衰竭患者来说,心脏移植是最有效的治疗方法。然而,供体心脏长期短缺,无法满足需求,因此必须扩大供体库,增加供应。心脏捐献主要发生在脑死亡后(神经系统确定死亡[NDD]),但在心循环死亡后(心脏停止跳动,不再有血流或脉搏),只要使用专门的保存技术,心脏捐献也是可行的。一种研究性设备--便携式常温心脏灌注系统--可以使采购、保存和运输心循环死亡(DCD)后捐献的心脏成为可能。我们对便携式常温心脏灌流系统进行了卫生技术评估,该系统用于保存和运输用于成人移植的 DCD 心脏。其中包括对该系统的有效性、安全性、性价比和政府资助对预算的影响进行评估,以及对患者的偏好和价值观进行评估:我们对 1998 年以来发表的临床文献进行了系统性回顾,这些文献对用于 DCD 心脏移植的便携式常温心脏灌注系统的临床安全性和有效性进行了研究。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每项纳入研究的偏倚风险和证据的质量。我们还回顾了同期发表的经济学证据,与 NDD 心脏的冷藏相比,DCD 心脏的便携式常温心脏灌注系统具有成本效益。我们进一步估算了为安大略省等待名单上的成人 DCD 心脏移植手术提供常温心脏灌注系统公共资金的 5 年净预算影响。为了说明便携式常温心脏灌注系统的潜在价值,我们采访了等待心脏移植的人、接受过心脏移植的人以及器官捐献者的家属:我们筛选了 2,386 篇临床文献。结果:我们筛选了 2,386 篇临床引用文献,其中一篇研究和两篇病例报告符合纳入标准。通过便携式常温心脏灌注系统获得的 DCD 心脏的受者在 30 天或 90 天内的存活率与通过 NDD 捐赠的心脏的受者在 30 天或 90 天内的存活率没有显著差异,移植后 1 年的累积存活率也没有显著差异(GRADE:极低)。排斥反应和移植失败的发生率在各组之间也无明显差异(研究成果评估:极低)。DCD 心脏术后早期的心功能优于 NDD 心脏(GRADE:极低)。DCD 采集技术之间的结果没有差异。一份报告符合纳入标准,但并不直接适用于安大略省的情况。鉴于缺乏有关长期结果的临床和经济证据,我们没有进行主要经济评估。在预算影响分析中,根据过去 5 年中 40 岁以下 DCD 供体的数量,我们估计该技术增加的供体心脏可用性将导致第 1 年增加 7 例移植,第 5 年增加到 12 例。在未来 5 年中,为安大略省常温心脏灌注系统的 DCD 心脏移植提供公共资金的年度净预算影响为:第一年约为 200 万美元,第 2 年至第 5 年每年约为 90 万美元,总净预算影响约为 560 万美元。如果第 1 年的移植量增加到 18 个心脏(这意味着第 5 年的移植量将增加到 21 个心脏),这一数字将增加到约 1,030 万美元。如果移植仅限于不符合心室辅助装置条件或符合条件但不希望接受心室辅助装置的患者,则 5 年的净预算影响总额将约为 790 万美元。等待心脏移植或接受过心脏移植的患者以及器官捐献者的家属对便携式常温心脏灌注系统的潜在用途并无实质性担忧。他们希望该系统能增加可供移植的捐献心脏数量。对于器官捐献者的家属来说,如果灌流系统能提高捐献心脏的成功率,那么它可能会给他们带来安慰和价值:基于极低质量的证据,使用便携式常温心脏灌流系统保存的 DCD 心脏的受者的预后似乎与 NDD 心脏的受者的预后相似。由于缺乏与安大略省相关的证据,我们无法确定便携式常温灌注系统是否具有成本效益。
{"title":"Portable Normothermic Cardiac Perfusion System in Donation After Cardiocirculatory Death: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart transplantation is the most effective treatment for people experiencing end-stage heart failure whose quality of life and life expectancy are unacceptable. However, there is a chronic shortage of donor hearts to meet the demand, so it is essential to expand the donor pool and increase supply. Heart donation mainly occurs after brain death (neurological determination of death [NDD]), but it may also be feasible after cardiocirculatory death (when the heart has stopped beating and there is no longer blood flow or a pulse), provided specialized preservation techniques are used. An investigational device, a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system, could make it possible to procure, preserve, and transport hearts donated after cardiocirculatory death (DCD). We conducted a health technology assessment of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system for the preservation and transportation of DCD hearts for adult transplantation. This included an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, value for money, and budget impact of publicly funding this system, as well as an evaluation of patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review of the clinical literature published since 1998 that examined the clinical safety and effectiveness of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system for DCD heart transplantation. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also reviewed the economic evidence published during the same time period for the cost-effectiveness of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system for DCD hearts compared with cold storage for NDD hearts. We further estimated the 5-year net budget impact of publicly funding a normothermic cardiac perfusion system for DCD heart transplantation for adults on Ontario's waitlist. To contextualize the potential value of a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system, we spoke with people waiting for a heart transplant, people who had received a heart transplant, and family members of organ donors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 2,386 clinical citations. One study and two case reports met the inclusion criteria. The survival of recipients of DCD hearts procured with a portable normothermic cardiac perfusion system did not differ significantly from the survival of recipients of hearts donated after NDD at 30 days or 90 days, nor was there a significant difference in cumulative survival at 1 year post-transplant (GRADE: Very Low). The occurrence of rejection and graft failure also did not significantly differ between the groups (GRADE: Very Low). Cardiac function in the early post-operative period was better in DCD hearts than NDD hearts (GRADE: Very Low). There were no differences in outcomes between DCD procurement techniques.The eco","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 3","pages":"1-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077939/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37753428","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
Auditory Brainstem Implantation for Adults With Neurofibromatosis 2 or Severe Inner Ear Abnormalities: A Health Technology Assessment. 成人神经纤维瘤病或严重内耳异常的听性脑干植入:一项健康技术评估
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) is a rare genetic disorder that causes vestibular schwannomas to develop in both eighth cranial nerves. Almost all people with NF2 eventually become completely deaf as a result of progressive tumour enlargement or following surgical or radiotherapy treatment. Other rare abnormal conditions in the inner ears can also cause complete deafness. For people with either indication who are not candidates for cochlear implantation, auditory brainstem implantation is the only treatment option to restore some functional hearing. We conducted a health technology assessment of auditory brainstem implantation for adults with NF2 and severe inner ear abnormalities, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation, 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 Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (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. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because the outcomes identified in our clinical evidence review were difficult to translate into measures appropriate for health economic modelling. We also analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation over the next 5 years in Ontario, including the device, presurgical assessment, surgical procedure, and postsurgical rehabilitation. To contextualize the potential value of auditory brainstem implants, we spoke with six people with lived experience of NF2 and severe inner ear abnormalities.

Results: We included 22 publications (16 in NF2, five in severe inner ear abnormalities, and one in complications of auditory brainstem implantation) in the clinical evidence review. In adults with NF2, auditory brainstem implantation when compared with no intervention allows any degree of improvement in sound recognition (GRADE: High), allows any degree of improvement in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading (GRADE: High), and provides subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: High). It likely allows any degree of improvement in speech perception when using the implant alone (GRADE: Moderate) and may improve quality of life (GRADE: Low). In adults with severe inner ear abnormalities, auditory brainstem implantation when compared with no intervention likely allows any degree of improvement in sound recognition (GRADE: Moderate) and in any speech perception when using the implant alone (GRADE: Moderate). It may allow any degree of improvement in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading (GRADE: Low),

背景:2型神经纤维瘤病(NF2)是一种罕见的遗传性疾病,可导致前庭神经鞘瘤在两侧第八脑神经中发展。几乎所有患有NF2的人最终都因肿瘤扩大或手术或放射治疗而完全失聪。其他罕见的内耳异常情况也会导致完全耳聋。对于不适合人工耳蜗植入的患者,听性脑干植入是恢复部分功能性听力的唯一治疗选择。我们对成人NF2和严重内耳异常的听性脑干植入进行了一项健康技术评估,包括有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助听性脑干植入的预算影响以及患者的偏好和价值观。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具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。我们没有进行初步的经济评估,因为我们在临床证据审查中确定的结果很难转化为适合健康经济建模的措施。我们还分析了安大略省未来5年公共资助听觉脑干植入的净预算影响,包括设备、术前评估、手术过程和术后康复。为了了解听觉脑干植入物的潜在价值,我们采访了6位经历过NF2和严重内耳异常的人。结果:我们在临床证据综述中纳入了22篇出版物(NF2 16篇,严重内耳异常5篇,听性脑干植入并发症1篇)。在患有NF2的成人中,与不进行干预相比,听觉脑干植入可以在任何程度上改善声音识别(等级:高),在与唇读结合使用时可以在任何程度上改善言语感知(等级:高),并提供听觉的主观益处(等级:高)。当单独使用植入物时,可能会有一定程度的语言感知改善(评级:中等),并可能改善生活质量(评级:低)。在患有严重内耳异常的成年人中,与不进行干预相比,听觉脑干植入可能会在声音识别(等级:中度)和单独使用植入物时的任何言语感知方面有任何程度的改善(等级:中度)。当与唇读结合使用时,它可以在任何程度上改善语音感知(低等级),提供听觉的主观好处(低等级),并改善生活质量(低等级)。我们没有发现任何关于成人NF2或因严重内耳异常而耳聋的成人听性脑干植入的经济学研究。我们估计,未来5年安大略省听觉脑干植入的年度净预算影响将从第一年的两次手术约13万美元到第5年的四次手术约26万美元不等。接受过听觉脑干植入手术的人报告说,他们恢复了部分听力,提高了生活质量,尽管他们也报告了使用该设备的持续挑战或手术的副作用。结论:与不进行干预相比,听觉脑干植入对患有NF2或严重内耳异常的成人完全失聪且不适合人工耳蜗植入的患者有一定的益处。根据中等到高质量的证据,听觉脑干植入物在与唇读结合使用时,对NF2患者的声音识别和言语感知有任何程度的改善。对于严重内耳异常的患者,这些结果的证据质量为低到中等。这些功能结果导致听力的主观益处,这在文献和对患者的采访中得到了一致的报道。我们无法确定这种治疗的成本效益。我们估计,在安大略省,公共资助听觉脑干植入将在未来5年内每年产生约13万至26万美元的额外费用。
{"title":"Auditory Brainstem Implantation for Adults With Neurofibromatosis 2 or Severe Inner Ear Abnormalities: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) is a rare genetic disorder that causes vestibular schwannomas to develop in both eighth cranial nerves. Almost all people with NF2 eventually become completely deaf as a result of progressive tumour enlargement or following surgical or radiotherapy treatment. Other rare abnormal conditions in the inner ears can also cause complete deafness. For people with either indication who are not candidates for cochlear implantation, auditory brainstem implantation is the only treatment option to restore some functional hearing. We conducted a health technology assessment of auditory brainstem implantation for adults with NF2 and severe inner ear abnormalities, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation, 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 Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (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. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because the outcomes identified in our clinical evidence review were difficult to translate into measures appropriate for health economic modelling. We also analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation over the next 5 years in Ontario, including the device, presurgical assessment, surgical procedure, and postsurgical rehabilitation. To contextualize the potential value of auditory brainstem implants, we spoke with six people with lived experience of NF2 and severe inner ear abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 22 publications (16 in NF2, five in severe inner ear abnormalities, and one in complications of auditory brainstem implantation) in the clinical evidence review. In adults with NF2, auditory brainstem implantation when compared with no intervention allows any degree of improvement in sound recognition (GRADE: High), allows any degree of improvement in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading (GRADE: High), and provides subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: High). It likely allows any degree of improvement in speech perception when using the implant alone (GRADE: Moderate) and may improve quality of life (GRADE: Low). In adults with severe inner ear abnormalities, auditory brainstem implantation when compared with no intervention likely allows any degree of improvement in sound recognition (GRADE: Moderate) and in any speech perception when using the implant alone (GRADE: Moderate). It may allow any degree of improvement in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading (GRADE: Low),","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 4","pages":"1-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077937/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37753429","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
Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment. 治疗单侧耳聋和传导性或混合性听力损失的植入式设备:健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada.

Methods: We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants.

Results: We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, P = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, P < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, P < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signa

对于患有传导性或混合性听力损失的成人和儿童而言,骨传导植入体与不采取任何干预措施相比可能具有成本效益(ICER:74,155-87,580 美元/QALY)。然而,研究结果存在很大的不确定性。在每 QALY 100,000 美元的支付意愿下,只有 50% 到 55% 的模拟结果具有成本效益。在敏感性分析中,结果对健康相关效用(使用通用生活质量工具测量)的变化最为敏感,这凸显了目前已公布数据的局限性(即样本量小、随访时间短)。对于单侧耳聋患者,安大略省政府资助人工耳蜗植入术估计将在未来 5 年内增加总计 280 万至 360 万美元的费用,该人群的骨传导植入术将需要额外 80 万美元。在访谈中,单侧耳聋和传导性或混合性听力损失患者表示,标准助听器无法满足他们的期望;因此,他们选择接受植入式设备手术。大多数有过植入人工耳蜗或骨传导植入体经历的人都对能够听到更好的声音和享受更好的生活质量给予了积极评价。植入人工耳蜗的人报告了额外的好处:双耳听力、更好的声音定位以及在嘈杂环境中听力更好。费用和获取途径是接受植入式设备的障碍:根据中等质量的证据,人工耳蜗植入和骨传导植入可改善单侧耳聋、传导性或混合性听力损失的成人和儿童的功能和患者重要的结果。与患者访谈的定性结果与我们研究的系统综述结果一致。在单侧耳聋患者中,与不采取任何干预措施相比,人工耳蜗植入可能具有成本效益,但骨传导植入不太可能具有成本效益。在传导性或混合性听力损失患者中,与不采取任何干预措施相比,骨传导植入可能具有成本效益。结果和不确定性主要是由与听力植入相关的健康效用的变化引起的。在安大略省,由政府出资为单侧耳聋和传导性或混合性听力损失患者植入两种类型的听力植入体的 5 年成本估计为 670 万至 780 万加元。
{"title":"Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, <i>P</i> < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, <i>P</i> < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, <i>P</i> < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, <i>P</i> = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, <i>P</i> < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, <i>P</i> < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, <i>P</i> < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signa","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 1","pages":"1-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7080453/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37756649","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
5-Aminolevulinic Acid Hydrochloride (5-ALA)-Guided Surgical Resection of High-Grade Gliomas: A Health Technology Assessment. 5-氨基乙酰丙酸盐酸盐(5-ALA)引导的高级别胶质瘤手术切除:健康技术评估》。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: High-grade gliomas are a type of malignant brain tumour. Optimal management often includes maximal surgical resection. 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA) is an imaging agent that makes a high-grade glioma fluoresce under blue light, which can help guide the surgeon when removing the tumour. We conducted a health technology assessment of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection of high-grade gliomas, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding 5-ALA, 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 identified systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. We reported the risk of bias of each included study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a systematic economic literature search to identify economic studies that compared 5-ALA-guided surgical resection of high-grade gliomas with standard surgical care or other intraoperative imaging modalities. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation due to lack of high-quality published clinical evidence evaluating 5-ALA-guided surgical resection. From the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, we analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding 5-ALA-guided surgical resection for adults with newly diagnosed, primary, high-grade gliomas for which resection is considered feasible. To contextualize the potential value of 5-ALA, we spoke with someone who had experience with high-grade glioma, 5-ALA-guided resection, and standard surgical treatment.

Results: We included one systematic review reporting on a single randomized controlled trial in the clinical evidence review. 5-ALA increased the proportion of patients achieving complete tumour resection compared with standard care (relative risk of incomplete resection 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.71; GRADE: Low). Evidence was uncertain for an effect on overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio for death 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.07; GRADE: Low), but there may be an improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (GRADE: Very low). Adverse events between groups was insufficiently reported, but appeared similar between groups for overall and neurological adverse events, with an observed increase in neurological deficits 48 hours after surgery with 5-ALA (GRADE: Very low). The economic literature search identified five studies that met our inclusion criteria because they evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection as compared with surgery with a

背景:高级别胶质瘤是恶性脑肿瘤的一种。最佳治疗通常包括最大限度的手术切除。5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride(5-ALA)是一种成像剂,可使高级别胶质瘤在蓝光下发出荧光,从而有助于指导外科医生切除肿瘤。我们对 5-ALA 引导下的高级别胶质瘤手术切除进行了一项卫生技术评估,其中包括对有效性、安全性、公共资助 5-ALA 对预算的影响以及患者的偏好和价值进行评估:我们对临床证据进行了系统性文献检索,检索出系统性综述,并从一篇最新、高质量且与我们的研究问题相关的综述中选择并报告了结果。我们对已确定的系统综述进行了文献检索,以确定在综述之后发表的随机对照试验。我们根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组的标准,报告了每项纳入研究的偏倚风险和证据的质量。我们还进行了系统的经济学文献检索,以确定将 5-ALA 引导的高级别胶质瘤手术切除与标准手术治疗或其他术中成像模式进行比较的经济学研究。由于缺乏已发表的评估 5-ALA 引导手术切除的高质量临床证据,我们没有进行主要经济评估。从安大略省卫生部的角度出发,我们分析了公共资助 5-ALA 引导手术切除术对新诊断的、原发性、高级别胶质瘤成人患者的 5 年预算影响。为了说明 5-ALA 的潜在价值,我们采访了在高级别胶质瘤、5-ALA 指导下的切除术和标准手术治疗方面有经验的人士:我们在临床证据综述中纳入了一篇系统综述,报告了一项随机对照试验。与标准治疗相比,5-ALA提高了实现肿瘤完全切除的患者比例(不完全切除的相对风险为0.55,95%置信区间为0.42-0.71;GRADE:低)。5-ALA对总生存期的影响尚不确定(死亡危险比为0.82,95%置信区间为0.62-1.07;GRADE:低),但6个月无进展生存期可能有所改善(GRADE:极低)。各组间不良事件的报告不充分,但各组间总体不良事件和神经系统不良事件似乎相似,观察到使用5-ALA术后48小时神经功能缺损增加(GRADE:极低)。经济文献检索发现了五项符合我们纳入标准的研究,因为这些研究评估了 5-ALA 引导的手术切除与在白光下使用标准手术显微镜("白光显微镜")进行手术切除的成本效益比较。这些研究大多发现,与白光显微镜相比,5-ALA 引导下手术切除治疗高级别胶质瘤具有成本效益。然而,所有研究都是从有限的、低质量的证据中得出 5-ALA 的安全性和有效性比较参数的临床模型输入。未来 5 年,安大略省对 5-ALA 引导手术切除的公共资助将在第 1 年产生约 93 万美元的预算影响,在第 5 年产生约 176.5 万美元的预算影响,在此期间产生的总预算影响约为 750 万美元。我们访谈的一位参与者曾经历过高级别胶质瘤、标准手术治疗和 5-ALA 引导下的切除术。该参与者认为,5-ALA 引导下的切除术能准确切除肿瘤,而且 5-ALA 能帮助外科医生更好地观察肿瘤,这让他感到放心:结论:与使用标准白光显微镜的手术相比,5-ALA引导下的手术切除似乎能改善高级别胶质瘤的切除范围(等级评定:低)。证据表明,5-ALA引导下的切除术可提高总生存率;但我们不能排除无影响的可能性(等级:低)。5-ALA 可能会改善 6 个月的无进展生存期,但结果非常不确定(等级评定:很低)。对总体或神经系统不良事件的影响尚不确定(GRADE:很低)。我们没有发现任何从安大略省或加拿大公共医疗支付方角度进行的经济学研究。在符合我们纳入标准的研究中,大多数研究发现,与白光显微镜相比,5-ALA 引导的手术切除治疗高级别胶质瘤具有成本效益。然而,5-ALA 的比较有效性和安全性的临床模型输入是基于有限且低质量的证据。我们估计,未来 5 年在安大略省公开资助 5-ALA 引导下的手术切除将产生约 750 万美元的 5 年预算影响。
{"title":"5-Aminolevulinic Acid Hydrochloride (5-ALA)-Guided Surgical Resection of High-Grade Gliomas: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-grade gliomas are a type of malignant brain tumour. Optimal management often includes maximal surgical resection. 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA) is an imaging agent that makes a high-grade glioma fluoresce under blue light, which can help guide the surgeon when removing the tumour. We conducted a health technology assessment of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection of high-grade gliomas, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding 5-ALA, 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, of high quality, and relevant to our research question. We complemented the identified systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. We reported the risk of bias of each included study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a systematic economic literature search to identify economic studies that compared 5-ALA-guided surgical resection of high-grade gliomas with standard surgical care or other intraoperative imaging modalities. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation due to lack of high-quality published clinical evidence evaluating 5-ALA-guided surgical resection. From the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, we analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding 5-ALA-guided surgical resection for adults with newly diagnosed, primary, high-grade gliomas for which resection is considered feasible. To contextualize the potential value of 5-ALA, we spoke with someone who had experience with high-grade glioma, 5-ALA-guided resection, and standard surgical treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included one systematic review reporting on a single randomized controlled trial in the clinical evidence review. 5-ALA increased the proportion of patients achieving complete tumour resection compared with standard care (relative risk of incomplete resection 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.71; GRADE: Low). Evidence was uncertain for an effect on overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio for death 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.07; GRADE: Low), but there may be an improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (GRADE: Very low). Adverse events between groups was insufficiently reported, but appeared similar between groups for overall and neurological adverse events, with an observed increase in neurological deficits 48 hours after surgery with 5-ALA (GRADE: Very low). The economic literature search identified five studies that met our inclusion criteria because they evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection as compared with surgery with a ","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 9","pages":"1-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077938/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37756614","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
Continual Long-Term Physiotherapy After Stroke: A Health Technology Assessment. 中风后持续长期物理治疗:一项健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Stroke is a serious health issue in which an interruption in blood flow to any part of the brain damages brain cells. About 83% of people survive with substantial morbidity after their first stroke. We conducted a health technology assessment of continual long-term physiotherapy for people with a diagnosis of stroke, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy for people with a diagnosis of stroke, and patient preferences and values.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We also performed a systematic literature search of the economic evidence. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because there was insufficient clinical evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke, we spoke with people who had been diagnosed with stroke, as well as their caregivers.

Results: We did not find any published studies that met the specific clinical inclusion criteria. We did not identify any studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of continual long-term versus short-term physiotherapy after stroke. The budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from $445,000 in year 1 at an uptake rate of 8% to $888,000 in year 5 at an uptake rate of 16%. The people who had been diagnosed with stroke with whom we spoke reported that they had benefitted from continual long-term physiotherapy.

Conclusions: We did not identify studies that addressed the specific research question. Based on the clinical evidence review, we are unable to determine the benefits of continual long-term compared with short-term physiotherapy after stroke. The cost-effectiveness of continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario is unknown. We estimate that publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario would result in additional costs of between $445,000 and $888,000 annually over the next 5 years. Patients and caregivers who we spoke with felt that patients who have experienced a stroke should be able to continue with physiotherapy.

背景:中风是一种严重的健康问题,其中大脑任何部分的血液流动中断会损害脑细胞。大约83%的人在第一次中风后存活下来,但发病率很高。我们对诊断为中风的患者进行了持续长期物理治疗的健康技术评估,包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资金持续长期物理治疗对中风患者的预算影响以及患者的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。我们还对经济证据进行了系统的文献检索。由于临床证据不足,我们没有进行初步的经济评估。我们还分析了安大略省中风后持续长期物理治疗的公共资助对预算的影响。为了了解中风后持续长期物理治疗的潜在价值,我们与被诊断为中风的人以及他们的护理人员进行了交谈。结果:我们没有发现任何已发表的研究符合特定的临床纳入标准。我们没有发现任何比较中风后持续长期和短期物理治疗的成本-效果的研究。在安大略省,未来5年,公共资助中风后持续长期物理治疗的预算影响范围从第一年的445,000美元(吸收率为8%)到第五年的888,000美元(吸收率为16%)不等。与我们交谈的被诊断为中风的人报告说,他们从持续的长期物理治疗中受益。结论:我们没有找到解决具体研究问题的研究。基于临床证据回顾,我们无法确定卒中后持续长期物理治疗与短期物理治疗的益处。安大略中风后持续长期物理治疗的成本效益尚不清楚。我们估计,在安大略省,公共资助中风后持续的长期物理治疗将在未来5年内导致每年44.5万至88.8万美元的额外费用。与我们交谈的患者和护理人员认为,经历过中风的患者应该能够继续进行物理治疗。
{"title":"Continual Long-Term Physiotherapy After Stroke: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stroke is a serious health issue in which an interruption in blood flow to any part of the brain damages brain cells. About 83% of people survive with substantial morbidity after their first stroke. We conducted a health technology assessment of continual long-term physiotherapy for people with a diagnosis of stroke, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy for people with a diagnosis of stroke, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We also performed a systematic literature search of the economic evidence. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because there was insufficient clinical evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke, we spoke with people who had been diagnosed with stroke, as well as their caregivers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We did not find any published studies that met the specific clinical inclusion criteria. We did not identify any studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of continual long-term versus short-term physiotherapy after stroke. The budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from $445,000 in year 1 at an uptake rate of 8% to $888,000 in year 5 at an uptake rate of 16%. The people who had been diagnosed with stroke with whom we spoke reported that they had benefitted from continual long-term physiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not identify studies that addressed the specific research question. Based on the clinical evidence review, we are unable to determine the benefits of continual long-term compared with short-term physiotherapy after stroke. The cost-effectiveness of continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario is unknown. We estimate that publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario would result in additional costs of between $445,000 and $888,000 annually over the next 5 years. Patients and caregivers who we spoke with felt that patients who have experienced a stroke should be able to continue with physiotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 7","pages":"1-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077936/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37756613","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
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiac Indications in Adults: A Health Technology Assessment. 体外膜肺氧合治疗成人心脏病:健康技术评估》。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy used to stabilize patients with hemodynamic compromise such as refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. When used for cardiac arrest, ECMO is also known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). We conducted a health technology assessment of venoarterial ECMO for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with cardiac arrest refractory to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical management (i.e., drugs, mechanical support such as intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist devices). Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO for these indications, 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 for systematic reviews and the Risk of Bias Among Nonrandomized Trials (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies, 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 with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO in Ontario for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. To contextualize the potential value of ECMO for cardiac indications, we spoke with patients and caregivers with direct experience with the procedure.

Results: We included one systematic review (with 13 observational studies) and two additional observational studies in the clinical review. Compared with traditional CPR for patients with refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day survival (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.54; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.30) (GRADE: Very Low) and significantly improved long-term survival (pooled RR 2.17; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.44) (GRADE: Low). Overall, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day favourable neurological outcome in patients with refractory cardiac arrest compared with traditional CPR; pooled RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.16) (GRADE: Very Low). For patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO was associated with a significant improvement in 30-day survival compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (pooled RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.61) (GRADE: Very Low). Compared with temporary percutaneous ventricular assist devices, ECMO was not associated with improved survival (pooled risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30) (GRADE: Very Low).We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR compared with conventional CPR is $18,722 and $28,792 per life-year gained (LYG) fo

背景:体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)是一种抢救疗法,用于稳定血流动力学受损的患者,如难治性心源性休克或心脏骤停患者。当用于心脏骤停时,ECMO 也被称为体外心肺复苏(ECPR)。我们对用于常规心肺复苏(CPR)难治性心搏骤停或常规药物治疗(即药物、主动脉内球囊反搏泵和临时心室辅助装置等机械支持)难治性心源性休克的成人(年龄≥ 18 岁)的静脉动脉 ECMO 进行了健康技术评估。我们的评估包括对这些适应症的有效性、安全性、成本效益、政府资助 ECMO 对预算的影响以及患者的偏好和价值观进行评估:我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用系统性综述中的偏倚风险(ROBIS)工具评估了每项纳入研究的偏倚风险,使用非随机试验中的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估了观察性研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组的标准评估了证据的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从公共支付方的角度进行了终生成本效益分析。我们还分析了安大略省公共资助 ECMO 对难治性心源性休克或心脏骤停患者的预算影响。为了解 ECMO 在心脏适应症方面的潜在价值,我们采访了有直接经验的患者和护理人员:我们在临床回顾中纳入了一篇系统性综述(包括 13 项观察性研究)和另外两项观察性研究。与难治性心脏骤停患者的传统心肺复苏术相比,ECPR 可显著提高患者的 30 天存活率(汇总风险比 [RR] 1.54;95% CI 1.03 至 2.30)(GRADE:极低),并显著提高长期存活率(汇总 RR 2.17;95% CI 1.37 至 3.44)(GRADE:低)。总体而言,与传统 CPR 相比,ECPR 可显著改善难治性心脏骤停患者 30 天的良好神经功能预后;汇总 RR 为 2.02(95% CI 为 1.29 至 3.16)(GRADE:极低)。对于心源性休克患者,与主动脉内球囊反搏泵相比,ECMO 可显著提高其 30 天存活率(汇总 RR 2.11;95% CI 1.23 至 3.61)(等级评定:极低)。与临时经皮心室辅助装置相比,ECMO 与生存率的提高无关(汇总风险比为 0.94;95% CI 为 0.67 至 1.30)(GRADE:极低)。我们估计,与传统心肺复苏相比,对于院内和院外心脏骤停患者,ECPR 的增量成本效益比分别为每增益生命年 (LYG) 18,722 美元和 28,792 美元。我们估计,在院内和院外心脏骤停患者的支付意愿为每 LYG 50,000 美元时,ECMO 与传统 CPR 相比具有成本效益的概率分别为 93% 和 60%。我们估计,未来 5 年安大略省对 ECMO 的公共资助将使心源性休克(治疗 314 人)的总费用增加 1,673,811 美元,院内心脏骤停(治疗 126 人)的总费用增加 2,195,517 美元,院外心脏骤停(治疗 247 人)的总费用增加 3,762,117 美元。他们都曾因急性血流动力学不稳定而住院。在决定是否接受该程序时,参与者通常依赖于医生的专业知识和判断:结论:对于接受难治性心脏骤停治疗的成人,与传统心肺复苏术相比,ECPR 可提高存活率,并有可能改善长期神经功能预后。对于接受心源性休克治疗的患者,与主动脉内球囊反搏泵相比,ECMO 可提高 30 天的存活率,但仍存在很大的不确定性。对于难治性心脏骤停的成人患者,与传统心肺复苏相比,ECMO 可能具有成本效益。我们估计,未来 5 年,安大略省为心脏骤停和心源性休克患者提供的 ECMO 公共资金每年将花费约 845,000 美元至 220 万美元。
{"title":"Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiac Indications in Adults: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy used to stabilize patients with hemodynamic compromise such as refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. When used for cardiac arrest, ECMO is also known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). We conducted a health technology assessment of venoarterial ECMO for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with cardiac arrest refractory to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical management (i.e., drugs, mechanical support such as intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist devices). Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO for these indications, 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 for systematic reviews and the Risk of Bias Among Nonrandomized Trials (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies, 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 with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO in Ontario for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. To contextualize the potential value of ECMO for cardiac indications, we spoke with patients and caregivers with direct experience with the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included one systematic review (with 13 observational studies) and two additional observational studies in the clinical review. Compared with traditional CPR for patients with refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day survival (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.54; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.30) (GRADE: Very Low) and significantly improved long-term survival (pooled RR 2.17; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.44) (GRADE: Low). Overall, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day favourable neurological outcome in patients with refractory cardiac arrest compared with traditional CPR; pooled RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.16) (GRADE: Very Low). For patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO was associated with a significant improvement in 30-day survival compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (pooled RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.61) (GRADE: Very Low). Compared with temporary percutaneous ventricular assist devices, ECMO was not associated with improved survival (pooled risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30) (GRADE: Very Low).We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR compared with conventional CPR is $18,722 and $28,792 per life-year gained (LYG) fo","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 8","pages":"1-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143364/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37828823","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
Genome-Wide Sequencing for Unexplained Developmental Disabilities or Multiple Congenital Anomalies: A Health Technology Assessment. 不明原因发育障碍或多种先天性异常的全基因组测序:一项健康技术评估。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: People with unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies might have had many biochemical, metabolic, and genetic tests for a period of years without receiving a diagnosis. A genetic diagnosis can help these people and their families better understand their condition and may help them to connect with others who have the same condition. Ontario Health (Quality), in collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a health technology assessment about the use of genome-wide sequencing for patients with unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies. Ontario Health (Quality) evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of publicly funding genome-wide sequencing. We also conducted interviews with patients and examined the quantitative evidence of preferences and values literature to better understand the patient preferences and values for these tests.

Methods: Ontario Health (Quality) performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using 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 also performed a search of the quantitative evidence and undertook direct patient engagement to ascertain patient preferences for genetic testing for unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies. CADTH performed a review of qualitative literature about patient perspectives and experiences, and a review of ethical issues.Ontario Health (Quality) performed an economic literature review of genome-wide sequencing in people with unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies. Although we found eight published cost-effectiveness studies, none completely addressed our research question. Therefore, we conducted a primary economic evaluation using a discrete event simulation model. Owing to its high cost and early stage of clinical implementation, whole exome sequencing is primarily used for people who do not have a diagnosis from standard testing (referred to here as whole exome sequencing after standard testing; standard testing includes chromosomal microarray and targeted single-gene tests or gene panels). Therefore, in our first analysis, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of whole exome sequencing after standard testing versus standard testing alone. In our second analysis, we explored the cost-effectiveness of whole exome and whole genome sequencing used at various times in the diagnostic pathway (e.g., first tier, second tier, after standard testing) versus standard testing. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding genome-wide sequencing in Ontario for the next 5 years.

Result

背景:患有不明原因的发育障碍或多种先天性异常的人可能在一段时间内进行了许多生化、代谢和基因检测,但没有得到诊断。基因诊断可以帮助这些人及其家人更好地了解他们的病情,并可能帮助他们与其他有相同病情的人联系起来。安大略省卫生部(质量)与加拿大卫生药品和技术机构(CADTH)合作,就对患有不明原因发育残疾或多种先天性异常的患者使用全基因组测序进行了一项卫生技术评估。安大略省卫生部(质量)评估了公共资助全基因组测序的有效性、成本效益和预算影响。我们还与患者进行了访谈,并检查了偏好和价值观文献的定量证据,以更好地了解患者对这些测试的偏好和价值观。方法:安大略省卫生(质量)对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用非随机研究的偏倚风险评估工具(RoBANS)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。我们还进行了定量证据的搜索,并进行了直接的患者参与,以确定患者对无法解释的发育障碍或多种先天性异常的基因检测的偏好。CADTH对有关患者观点和经验的定性文献进行了回顾,并对伦理问题进行了回顾。安大略省卫生部(质量)对不明原因发育障碍或多重先天性异常患者的全基因组测序进行了经济文献综述。虽然我们找到了8项已发表的成本效益研究,但没有一项完全解决了我们的研究问题。因此,我们使用离散事件模拟模型进行了初步的经济评估。全外显子组测序由于其高昂的成本和临床实施的早期阶段,主要用于没有通过标准检测(这里指标准检测后的全外显子组测序;标准测试包括染色体微阵列和靶向单基因测试或基因面板)。因此,在我们的第一个分析中,我们评估了标准检测后全外显子组测序与单独标准检测的成本效益。在我们的第二个分析中,我们探讨了全外显子组和全基因组测序在诊断途径的不同时间(例如,第一级,第二级,标准测试后)与标准测试的成本效益。我们还估计了安大略省未来5年公共资助全基因组测序的预算影响。结果:44项研究被纳入临床证据回顾。全基因组测序对不明原因发育障碍和多发性先天性异常患者的总体诊断率为37%,但我们对这一估计非常不确定(GRADE: very Low)。与染色体微阵列和靶向单基因检测或基因面板的标准基因检测相比,全基因组测序可能具有更高的诊断率(GRADE: Low)。此外,对于一些接受检测的人来说,全基因组测序会促使他们改变药物、治疗方法,并向专家转诊(GRADE: Very Low)。标准检测后的全外显子组测序每位患者额外花费3261美元,但比单独进行标准检测更有效。在标准检测后使用全外显子组测序,每检测1000人,将导致240人有分子诊断,272人有任何阳性发现,46人有积极的治疗改变(修改药物、程序或治疗)。由此产生的增量成本效益比(ICERs)为每增加一次分子诊断13,591美元。在诊断途径的早期使用全基因组测序(例如,作为一级或二级检测)可以节省成本,并比标准检测提高诊断产量。当参数和假设发生变化时,结果仍然是稳健的。我们的预算影响分析表明,如果标准测试后的全外显子组测序继续通过安大略省的境外预先批准计划获得资助,其预算影响将在1至5年内达到400万至500万美元。如果全外显子组测序在安大略省得到公共资助(不是通过境外事先批准计划),预算影响将约为每年900万美元。我们还发现,使用全外显子组测序作为二级检测将节省成本(每年每1000人检测340万美元)。 参与者表现出一致的动机和期望通过全基因组测序获得不明原因的发育迟缓或先天性异常的诊断。在考虑全基因组测序和了解诊断时,患者和家属非常重视通过遗传咨询获得的支持和信息。结论:与标准检测相比,全基因组测序对不明原因发育障碍或多种先天性异常的诊断率更高。全基因组测序还可以促使一些接受检测的人改变药物、治疗方法和转介给专家;然而,我们对此非常不确定。如果在标准测试之后使用全基因组测序来诊断患有不明原因的发育障碍或多种先天性异常的人,可能是一种具有成本效益的策略。如果在早期的诊断过程中使用,它还可以节省成本。患者和家属一直注意到通过基因检测进行诊断的好处。
{"title":"Genome-Wide Sequencing for Unexplained Developmental Disabilities or Multiple Congenital Anomalies: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies might have had many biochemical, metabolic, and genetic tests for a period of years without receiving a diagnosis. A genetic diagnosis can help these people and their families better understand their condition and may help them to connect with others who have the same condition. Ontario Health (Quality), in collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a health technology assessment about the use of genome-wide sequencing for patients with unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies. Ontario Health (Quality) evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of publicly funding genome-wide sequencing. We also conducted interviews with patients and examined the quantitative evidence of preferences and values literature to better understand the patient preferences and values for these tests.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ontario Health (Quality) performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using 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 also performed a search of the quantitative evidence and undertook direct patient engagement to ascertain patient preferences for genetic testing for unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies. CADTH performed a review of qualitative literature about patient perspectives and experiences, and a review of ethical issues.Ontario Health (Quality) performed an economic literature review of genome-wide sequencing in people with unexplained developmental disabilities or multiple congenital anomalies. Although we found eight published cost-effectiveness studies, none completely addressed our research question. Therefore, we conducted a primary economic evaluation using a discrete event simulation model. Owing to its high cost and early stage of clinical implementation, whole exome sequencing is primarily used for people who do not have a diagnosis from standard testing (referred to here as whole exome sequencing after standard testing; standard testing includes chromosomal microarray and targeted single-gene tests or gene panels). Therefore, in our first analysis, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of whole exome sequencing after standard testing versus standard testing alone. In our second analysis, we explored the cost-effectiveness of whole exome and whole genome sequencing used at various times in the diagnostic pathway (e.g., first tier, second tier, after standard testing) versus standard testing. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding genome-wide sequencing in Ontario for the next 5 years.</p><p><strong>Result","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 11","pages":"1-178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7080457/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37756650","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, Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis at Intermediate Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment. 经导管主动脉瓣植入术治疗严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄患者的中等手术风险:一项健康技术评估
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment in patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure, originally developed as an alternative for patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk.

Methods: We conducted a health technology assessment of TAVI versus SAVR in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values. We performed a literature search to retrieve systematic reviews and selected one that was relevant to our research question. We complemented the systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. Applicable, previously published cost-effectiveness analyses were available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at intermediate surgical risk in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI for people at intermediate surgical risk, we spoke with people who had aortic valve stenosis and their families.

Results: We identified two randomized controlled trials; they found that in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years of follow-up (GRADE: High). However, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others. Device-related costs for TAVI (approximately $23,000) are much higher than for SAVR (approximately $6,000). Based on two published cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, TAVI was more expensive and, on average, more effective (i.e., it produced more quality-adjusted life-years) than SAVR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that TAVI may be cost-effective, but the probability of TAVI being cost-effective versus SAVR was less than 60% at a willingness-to-pay value of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario would be about $2 million to $3 million each year for the next 5 years. This cost may be reduced if people receiving TAVI have a shorter hospital stay (≤ 3 days). We interviewed 13 people who had lived experience with aortic valve stenosis. People who had undergone TAVI reported reduced physical and psychological effects and a shorter recovery time. Patients and caregivers living in remote or northern regions reported lower out-of-pocket costs with TAVI because the length of hospital stay was reduced. People said that TAVI increased their quality of life in the short-term immediately after the procedure.

Conclusions: In people with

背景:手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)是低或中等手术风险患者的常规治疗方法。经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)是一种侵入性较小的手术,最初是作为高风险或手术风险高的患者的替代选择而开发的。方法:我们对中度手术风险的严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄患者进行了TAVI与SAVR的健康技术评估,包括对有效性、安全性、成本-效果、预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。我们进行了文献检索以检索系统综述,并选择了与我们的研究问题相关的文献。我们通过文献检索来补充系统综述,以确定综述后发表的随机对照试验。适用的,先前发表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。我们分析了安大略省中等手术风险人群中公共资助TAVI的净预算影响。为了了解TAVI对中等手术风险人群的潜在价值,我们与主动脉瓣狭窄患者及其家人进行了交谈。结果:我们确定了两项随机对照试验;他们发现,在有严重症状的主动脉瓣狭窄患者中,TAVI在随访2年内的全因死亡率或致残性卒中的综合终点方面不逊于SAVR (GRADE:高)。然而,与SAVR相比,TAVI的某些并发症风险更高,而其他并发症风险较低。TAVI的设备相关费用(约23 000美元)远高于SAVR(约6 000美元)。根据从安大略省卫生部角度进行的两项已发表的成本效益分析,TAVI比SAVR更昂贵,而且平均而言更有效(即,它产生的质量调整生命年更多)。增量成本-效果比表明TAVI可能具有成本效益,但在每个质量调整生命年的支付意愿值为100,000美元时,TAVI与SAVR相比具有成本效益的概率低于60%。安大略省公共资助TAVI的净预算影响将在未来5年内每年约为200万至300万美元。如果接受TAVI的患者住院时间较短(≤3天),这一费用可能会降低。我们采访了13位有过主动脉瓣狭窄经历的人。接受过TAVI的人报告说,身体和心理上的影响减少了,恢复时间也缩短了。生活在偏远或北部地区的患者和护理人员报告说,由于缩短了住院时间,使用TAVI的自付费用较低。人们说TAVI在手术后立即提高了他们的短期生活质量。结论:在中度手术风险的严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄患者中,TAVI与SAVR在全因死亡率或致残性卒中的复合终点方面相似。然而,两种治疗方法有不同的并发症模式。该研究的作者还指出,需要更长的随访时间来评估TAVI瓣膜的耐久性。与SAVR相比,TAVI可能物有所值,但在安大略省公开资助TAVI将导致未来5年的额外成本。接受TAVI的主动脉瓣狭窄患者对其侵入性较小表示赞赏,并报告手术后身体和心理影响大幅减少,提高了他们的生活质量。
{"title":"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis at Intermediate 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 in patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure, originally developed as an alternative for patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a health technology assessment of TAVI versus SAVR in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values. We performed a literature search to retrieve systematic reviews and selected one that was relevant to our research question. We complemented the systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. Applicable, previously published cost-effectiveness analyses were available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at intermediate surgical risk in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI for people at intermediate surgical risk, we spoke with people who had aortic valve stenosis and their families.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified two randomized controlled trials; they found that in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years of follow-up (GRADE: High). However, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others. Device-related costs for TAVI (approximately $23,000) are much higher than for SAVR (approximately $6,000). Based on two published cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, TAVI was more expensive and, on average, more effective (i.e., it produced more quality-adjusted life-years) than SAVR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that TAVI may be cost-effective, but the probability of TAVI being cost-effective versus SAVR was less than 60% at a willingness-to-pay value of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario would be about $2 million to $3 million each year for the next 5 years. This cost may be reduced if people receiving TAVI have a shorter hospital stay (≤ 3 days). We interviewed 13 people who had lived experience with aortic valve stenosis. People who had undergone TAVI reported reduced physical and psychological effects and a shorter recovery time. Patients and caregivers living in remote or northern regions reported lower out-of-pocket costs with TAVI because the length of hospital stay was reduced. People said that TAVI increased their quality of life in the short-term immediately after the procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In people with","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 2","pages":"1-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7080451/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37756651","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
Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment. 早期浸润性乳腺癌基因表达谱检测:健康技术评估》。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Breast cancer is a disease in which cells in the breast grow out of control. They often form a tumour that may be seen on an x-ray or felt as a lump.Gene expression profiling (GEP) tests are intended to help predict the risk of metastasis (spread of the cancer to other parts of the body) and to identify people who will most likely benefit from chemotherapy. We conducted a health technology assessment of four GEP tests (EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna) for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests, 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 either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), or Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), depending on the type of study and outcome of interest, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients and providers for GEP tests.We performed an economic evidence review to identify published studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of each of the four GEP tests compared with usual care or with one another for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer. We adapted a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of care that includes a GEP test with usual care without a GEP test over a lifetime horizon. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests to be conducted in Ontario, compared with funding tests conducted through the out-of-country program and compared with no funding of tests in any location.To contextualize the potential value of GEP tests, we spoke with people who have been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

Results: We included 68 studies in the clinical evidence review. Within the lymph-node-negative (LN-) population, GEP tests can prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence (GRADE: Moderate) and may predict chemotherapy benefit (GRADE: Low). The evidence for prognostic and predictive ability (ability to indicate the risk of an outcome and ability to predict who will benefit from chemotherapy, respectively) was lower for the lymph-node-positive (LN+) population (GRADE: Very Low to Low). GEP tests may also lead to changes in treatment (GRADE: Low) and generally may increase physician confidence in treatment recommendations (GRADE: Low).Our economic evidence review showed that GEP tests are generally cost-effective compared with usual care.Our primary economic evaluation showed that all GEP test strategies were more effective

背景介绍乳腺癌是一种乳腺细胞生长失控的疾病。基因表达谱(GEP)检测旨在帮助预测癌症转移(癌症扩散到身体其他部位)的风险,并确定哪些人最有可能从化疗中获益。我们对四种针对早期浸润性乳腺癌患者的 GEP 检测(EndoPredict、MammaPrint、Oncotype DX 和 Prosigna)进行了健康技术评估,其中包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助 GEP 检测对预算的影响以及患者的偏好和价值观进行评估:我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具、预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)或非随机研究偏倚风险评估工具(RoBANS)评估了每项纳入研究的偏倚风险,具体取决于研究类型和相关结果,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级工作组(GRADE)标准评估了证据的质量。我们还对患者和医疗服务提供者对 GEP 检查的偏好和价值的定量证据进行了文献调查。我们进行了经济学证据回顾,以确定已发表的研究,评估四种 GEP 检查中每种检查与常规护理或与其他检查相比,对早期浸润性乳腺癌患者的成本效益。我们对决策分析模型进行了调整,以比较包括 GEP 检测的护理与不包括 GEP 检测的常规护理在一生中的成本和结果。我们还估算了由政府资助在安大略省进行的 GEP 检测对预算的影响,并与资助通过境外计划进行的检测进行了比较,还与不资助在任何地方进行检测进行了比较。为了说明 GEP 检测的潜在价值,我们采访了被诊断为早期浸润性乳腺癌的患者:我们在临床证据审查中纳入了 68 项研究。在淋巴结阴性(LN-)人群中,GEP 检测可预测远处复发风险(GRADE:中度),并可预测化疗获益(GRADE:低度)。淋巴结阳性(LN+)人群的预后能力和预测能力(分别指结果风险的能力和预测化疗获益者的能力)证据较低(GRADE:极低至低)。我们的主要经济评估结果显示,所有 GEP 检测策略都比常规治疗更有效(带来更多的质量调整生命年[QALYs]),并且在每获得一个质量调整生命年的支付意愿值低于 20,000 美元时可被视为具有成本效益。我们的研究结果存在一定的不确定性。敏感性分析表明,我们的结果对所考虑的亚组(即 LN+ 和绝经前)、贴现率、年龄和效用的变化是稳健的。然而,成本参数假设确实影响了我们的结果。我们对检验项目进行的情景分析表明,与 MammaPrint 相比,Oncotype DX 可能具有成本效益,而与 EndoPredict 相比,Prosigna 可能具有成本效益。当 GEP 检测与临床工具进行比较时,检测的成本效益各不相同。假定 GEP 检测的采用率较高,我们估计,与目前通过境外计划公共资助 GEP 检测的情况相比,安大略省公共资助 GEP 检测的预算影响将在 129 万美元(第 1 年)和 222 万美元(第 5 年)之间。患者对从基因表达谱检测中了解到的信息感到满意,并认为基因表达谱检测有助于减少决策的不确定性和焦虑:基因表达谱检测可以预测远处复发的风险,有些检测还可以预测化疗的疗效。对于ER+、LN-和人类表皮生长因子受体2(HER2)阴性的乳腺癌患者,与不进行检测相比,基因表达谱检测可能具有成本效益。在 LN+ 和绝经前人群中,GEP 检测也可能具有成本效益。
{"title":"Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast cancer is a disease in which cells in the breast grow out of control. They often form a tumour that may be seen on an x-ray or felt as a lump.Gene expression profiling (GEP) tests are intended to help predict the risk of metastasis (spread of the cancer to other parts of the body) and to identify people who will most likely benefit from chemotherapy. We conducted a health technology assessment of four GEP tests (EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna) for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests, 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 either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), or Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), depending on the type of study and outcome of interest, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients and providers for GEP tests.We performed an economic evidence review to identify published studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of each of the four GEP tests compared with usual care or with one another for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer. We adapted a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of care that includes a GEP test with usual care without a GEP test over a lifetime horizon. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests to be conducted in Ontario, compared with funding tests conducted through the out-of-country program and compared with no funding of tests in any location.To contextualize the potential value of GEP tests, we spoke with people who have been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 68 studies in the clinical evidence review. Within the lymph-node-negative (LN-) population, GEP tests can prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence (GRADE: Moderate) and may predict chemotherapy benefit (GRADE: Low). The evidence for prognostic and predictive ability (ability to indicate the risk of an outcome and ability to predict who will benefit from chemotherapy, respectively) was lower for the lymph-node-positive (LN+) population (GRADE: Very Low to Low). GEP tests may also lead to changes in treatment (GRADE: Low) and generally may increase physician confidence in treatment recommendations (GRADE: Low).Our economic evidence review showed that GEP tests are generally cost-effective compared with usual care.Our primary economic evaluation showed that all GEP test strategies were more effective ","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 10","pages":"1-234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143374/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37828824","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
Cell-Free Circulating Tumour DNA Blood Testing to Detect EGFR T790M Mutation in People With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment. 检测晚期非小细胞肺癌患者表皮生长因子受体 T790M 基因突变的无细胞循环肿瘤 DNA 血液检测:健康技术评估》。
Q1 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01

Background: Cell-free circulating tumour DNA blood testing (also called liquid biopsy) can determine if a person with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is progressing has developed the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M resistance mutation. Identifying this resistance mutation can help physicians choose appropriate treatment (i.e., osimertinib if positive and chemotherapy if negative). Tissue biopsy is typically used to look for the resistance mutation, but this is an invasive test that might not be feasible if the patient is too ill. We conducted a health technology assessment of liquid biopsy for people with advanced NSCLC, which included an evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the budget impact of publicly funding liquid biopsy, as well as an evaluation of 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 Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2), Risk of Bias Among Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), and the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool and assessed quality 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 short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing liquid biopsy as a triage test, liquid biopsy alone, and tissue biopsy alone from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding liquid biopsy for people in Ontario with advanced NSCLC. To assess the potential value of liquid biopsy, we spoke with people with lung cancer and people with an understanding of the process of liquid biopsy.

Results: We included 19 studies (within a published systematic review) to examine diagnostic test accuracy and 12 studies to examine clinical utility. In patients with advanced NSCLC, liquid biopsy to detect the EGFR T790M resistance mutation demonstrated a positive and negative predictive value of 89% and 61%, respectively, a sensitivity of 68%, and specificity of 86%. No studies examined the clinical utility of liquid biopsy as a triage test. When NSCLC was treated appropriately, progression-free survival was similar in patients with and without the resistance mutation, as ascertained by liquid biopsy.We estimated that it costs about $700 to conduct a liquid biopsy and $2,500 to conduct a tissue biopsy. Our analyses showed that, when considering costs and effects directly related to testing, liquid biopsy (as a triage test, which means patients who test negative undergo a follow-up tissue biopsy, or alone, which means using only liquid biopsy) was less costly than tissue biopsy alone and led to fewer tissue

背景:无细胞循环肿瘤DNA血液检测(又称液体活检)可确定病情正在进展的晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者是否已出现表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)T790M耐药突变。识别这种耐药突变可以帮助医生选择适当的治疗方法(即如果阳性,则选择奥希替尼,如果阴性,则选择化疗)。组织活检通常用于寻找耐药突变,但这是一项侵入性检查,如果患者病情严重,可能无法进行。我们对晚期 NSCLC 患者的液体活检进行了一项健康技术评估,其中包括对诊断准确性、临床实用性、安全性、成本效益和液体活检公共资助的预算影响的评估,以及对患者偏好和价值的评估:我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用系统综述偏倚风险(ROBIS)、诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)、非随机研究偏倚风险(RoBANS)和 Cochrane 偏倚风险(ROB)工具评估了每项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质量。我们进行了系统的经济学文献检索,并从公共付费者的角度对作为分诊检查的液体活检、单纯液体活检和单纯组织活检进行了短期和长期成本效益和成本效用分析。我们还分析了公共资助液体活检对安大略省晚期 NSCLC 患者预算的影响。为了评估液体活检的潜在价值,我们采访了肺癌患者和了解液体活检过程的人士:我们纳入了 19 项研究(在已发表的系统综述范围内)以检查诊断测试的准确性,并纳入了 12 项研究以检查临床效用。在晚期NSCLC患者中,通过液体活检检测表皮生长因子受体T790M耐药突变的阳性预测值为89%,阴性预测值为61%,敏感性为68%,特异性为86%。没有研究对液体活检作为分诊检验的临床实用性进行研究。我们估计,进行一次液体活检的成本约为700美元,而进行一次组织活检的成本约为2500美元。我们的分析表明,在考虑与检测直接相关的成本和效果时,液体活检(作为分流检测,即检测阴性的患者接受后续组织活检,或单独使用,即仅使用液体活检)比单独组织活检的成本更低,组织活检的次数也更少。在考虑长期成本(即治疗和护理)和效果(即生命年和质量调整生命年[QALYs])时,液体活检作为分流检验是最有效、成本最高的策略,其次是单纯液体活检。单纯组织活检是最无效且成本最低的策略。液体活检作为分流检测与单纯液体活检相比,以及单纯液体活检与单纯组织活检相比,每QALY的增量成本效益比(ICER)均大于100,000美元。然而,这一结果主要是由奥希替尼的成本所导致的,因为在使用液体活检作为分流检测时,奥希替尼的使用频率更高。我们估计,在未来 5 年内,安大略省政府资助液体活检作为分流检测的年度预算影响总额将从第 1 年的约 6 万美元到第 5 年的 300 万美元不等。与我们交谈过的肺癌患者表示,鉴于NSCLC患者体质虚弱,液体活检很可能是一种合适的检测方法,因为它可以避免组织活检带来的痛苦和焦虑:作为一种微创检验,液体活检能识别出很高比例的表皮生长因子受体 T790M 耐药突变患者。这种鉴别能更好地指导晚期 NSCLC 患者的治疗。然而,液体活检的阴性预测值相对较低,因此最好将其作为一种分流检测(即如果液体活检未发现耐药突变,则进行组织活检)。液体活检作为分流检测可能比单独进行组织活检更有效。然而,由于治疗费用高昂,液体活检可能不具成本效益。我们估计,在安大略省公开资助液体活检作为一种分流检测方法,将在未来 5 年内带来 6 万至 300 万美元的额外成本(与更多患者接受治疗有关)。
{"title":"Cell-Free Circulating Tumour DNA Blood Testing to Detect <i>EGFR</i> T790M Mutation in People With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cell-free circulating tumour DNA blood testing (also called liquid biopsy) can determine if a person with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is progressing has developed the epidermal growth factor receptor (<i>EGFR</i>) T790M resistance mutation. Identifying this resistance mutation can help physicians choose appropriate treatment (i.e., osimertinib if positive and chemotherapy if negative). Tissue biopsy is typically used to look for the resistance mutation, but this is an invasive test that might not be feasible if the patient is too ill. We conducted a health technology assessment of liquid biopsy for people with advanced NSCLC, which included an evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the budget impact of publicly funding liquid biopsy, as well as an evaluation of 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 Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2), Risk of Bias Among Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), and the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool and assessed quality 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 short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing liquid biopsy as a triage test, liquid biopsy alone, and tissue biopsy alone from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding liquid biopsy for people in Ontario with advanced NSCLC. To assess the potential value of liquid biopsy, we spoke with people with lung cancer and people with an understanding of the process of liquid biopsy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 19 studies (within a published systematic review) to examine diagnostic test accuracy and 12 studies to examine clinical utility. In patients with advanced NSCLC, liquid biopsy to detect the <i>EGFR</i> T790M resistance mutation demonstrated a positive and negative predictive value of 89% and 61%, respectively, a sensitivity of 68%, and specificity of 86%. No studies examined the clinical utility of liquid biopsy as a triage test. When NSCLC was treated appropriately, progression-free survival was similar in patients with and without the resistance mutation, as ascertained by liquid biopsy.We estimated that it costs about $700 to conduct a liquid biopsy and $2,500 to conduct a tissue biopsy. Our analyses showed that, when considering costs and effects directly related to testing, liquid biopsy (as a triage test, which means patients who test negative undergo a follow-up tissue biopsy, or alone, which means using only liquid biopsy) was less costly than tissue biopsy alone and led to fewer tissue ","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"20 5","pages":"1-176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082730/pdf/ohtas-20-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37765644","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