scholarly journals Virtual chromoendoscopy for the real-time assessment of colorectal polyps in vivo: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (79) ◽  
pp. 1-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Picot ◽  
Micah Rose ◽  
Keith Cooper ◽  
Karen Pickett ◽  
Joanne Lord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Surveillance Interval ◽  
Virtual Chromoendoscopy ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundCurrent clinical practice is to remove a colorectal polyp detected during colonoscopy and determine whether it is an adenoma or hyperplastic by histopathology. Identifying adenomas is important because they may eventually become cancerous if untreated, whereas hyperplastic polyps do not usually develop into cancer, and a surveillance interval is set based on the number and size of adenomas found. Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) (an electronic endoscopic imaging technique) could be used by the endoscopist under strictly controlled conditions for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VCE technologies narrow-band imaging (NBI), flexible spectral imaging colour enhancement (FICE) and i-scan for the characterisation and management of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps using high-definition (HD) systems without magnification.DesignSystematic review and economic analysis.ParticipantsPeople undergoing colonoscopy for screening or surveillance or to investigate symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer.InterventionsNBI, FICE and i-scan.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic accuracy, recommended surveillance intervals, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects, incidence of colorectal cancer, mortality and cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology.Data sourcesElectronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published English-language studies from inception to June 2016. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company information were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methodsSystematic reviews of test accuracy and economic evaluations were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, to inform the independent economic model. A cost–utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. The model used a decision tree for patients undergoing endoscopy, combined with estimates of long-term outcomes (e.g. incidence of colorectal cancer and subsequent morbidity and mortality) derived from University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research’s bowel cancer screening model. The model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon. There were limitations in the data on the distribution of adenomas across risk categories and recurrence rates post polypectomy.ResultsThirty test accuracy studies were included: 24 for NBI, five for i-scan and three for FICE (two studies assessed two interventions). Polyp assessments made with high confidence were associated with higher sensitivity and endoscopists experienced in VCE achieved better results than those without experience. Two economic evaluations were included. NBI, i-scan and FICE are cost-saving strategies compared with histopathology and the number of quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar for histopathology and VCE. The correct surveillance interval would be given to 95% of patients with NBI, 94% of patients with FICE and 97% of patients with i-scan.LimitationsLimited evidence was available for i-scan and FICE and there was heterogeneity among the NBI studies. There is a lack of data on longer-term health outcomes of patients undergoing VCE for assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps.ConclusionsVCE technologies, using HD systems without magnification, could potentially be used for the real-time assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps, if endoscopists have adequate experience and training.Future workFuture research priorities include head-to-head randomised controlled trials of all three VCE technologies; more research on the diagnostic accuracy of FICE and i-scan (when used without magnification); further studies evaluating the impact of endoscopist experience and training on outcomes; studies measuring adverse effects, HRQoL and anxiety; and longitudinal data on colorectal cancer incidence, HRQoL and mortality.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037767.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions in Somatic Diseases: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels J Elbert ◽  
Harmieke van Os-Medendorp ◽  
Wilco van Renselaar ◽  
Anne G Ekeland ◽  
Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Somatic Diseases

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma E. Shields ◽  
Jamie Elvidge
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Study Designs

AbstractEconomic evaluations help decision-makers faced with tough decisions on how to allocate resources. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are useful as they allow readers to assess whether interventions have been demonstrated to be cost effective, the uncertainty in the evidence base, and key limitations or gaps in the evidence base. The synthesis of systematic reviews of economic evaluations commonly takes a narrative approach whereas a meta-analysis is common step for reviews of clinical evidence (e.g. effectiveness or adverse event outcomes). As they are common objectives in other reviews, readers may query why a synthesis has not been attempted for economic outcomes. However, a meta-analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, or health benefits (including quality-adjusted life years) is fraught with issues largely due to heterogeneity across study designs and methods and further practical challenges. Therefore, meta-analysis is rarely feasible or robust. This commentary outlines these issues, supported by examples from the literature, to support researchers and reviewers considering systematic review of economic evidence.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of RAS testing in colorectal cancer. A systematic review of economic evaluations

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Unim ◽  
E Pitini ◽  
E D'Andrea ◽  
C De Vito ◽  
C Marzuillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn M. de Verteuil ◽  
Rodolfo A. Hernández ◽  
Luke Vale ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Short Term

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average £300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay £30,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional £300 per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.

scholarly journals Initiatives to reduce length of stay in acute hospital settings: a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhanced recovery programmes

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Paton ◽  
Duncan Chambers ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Alison Eastwood ◽  
Dawn Craig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Hospital ◽  
Economic Evaluations

BackgroundThere has been growing interest in the NHS over recent years in the use of enhanced recovery programmes for elective surgery to deliver productivity gains through reduced length of stay, fewer postoperative complications, reduced readmissions and improved patient outcomes.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings. To identify and critically describe key factors associated with successful adoption, implementation and sustainability of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings. To summarise existing knowledge about patient experience of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings.Data sourcesEight databases, including Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, International Prospective of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and MEDLINE, were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies.Review methodsSystematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), economic evaluations, and UK NHS cost analysis studies were included if they evaluated the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on any health- and cost-related outcomes. Eligible studies included patients undergoing elective surgery in an acute hospital setting. Implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were also eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment of systematic reviews, RCTs and economic evaluations was based on existing Centre for Reviews and Dissemination processes. All stages of the review process were performed by one researcher and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The type and range of evidence precluded meta-analysis and we therefore performed a narrative synthesis, differentiating between clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, implementation case studies and evidence on patient experience.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews of varying quality were included in this report. Twelve additional RCTs were included; all were considered at high risk of bias. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. Fourteen innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in NHS settings were identified and provide descriptions of factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Ten relevant economic evaluations were identified evaluating costs and outcomes over short time horizons. Despite the plethora of studies, robust evidence was sparse. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5–3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reported reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified.LimitationsFindings relating to other clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, implementation and patient experience were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.ConclusionsThere is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes can realise reductions and cost savings will depend on length of stays achieved under their existing care pathway. RCTs comparing an enhanced recovery programme with conventional care continue to be conducted and published. Further single-centre RCTs of this kind are not a priority. Rather, what is needed is improved collection and reporting of how enhanced recovery programmes are implemented, resourced and experienced in NHS settings.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

scholarly journals The Imaginary Worlds of ISPOR: Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Claims Published in Value in Health from January 2016 to December 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C Langley ◽  
Taeho Greg Rhee
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Thought Experiments ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Effectiveness Studies ◽  
Model Structures ◽  
Care Decision

In 2016, a review of modeled cost-effectiveness studies published in Value in Health between January 2015 and December 2015 was presented. The purpose of the review was to consider whether these modeled claims for cost-effectiveness met the standards of normal science: were the claims made credible, evaluable and replicable? The review concluded that none of the 16 studies assessed met this standard. They should be seen as thought experiments; the construction of imaginary worlds which should be categorized as pseudoscience. The reader, or health care decision maker, would have had no idea, and would never know, whether the claims were right, wrong or misleading. Similar reviews were undertaken in Pharmacoeconomics and the Journal of Medical Economics and came to the same conclusion. The purpose of this second review is to consider the modeled claims published in Value in Health between January 2016 and December 2016, applying the same criteria. Unfortunately, for those who subscribe to the standards of normal science, we must come to the same conclusion. Of the 13 economic evaluations reviewed, 12 simulated claims that were immune to failure. The model structures ensured that the claims were neither evaluable nor replicable. They were categorized as pseudoscience; they failed to meet the standards of normal science. Five of these studies were supported by manufacturers and all supported the manufacturer’s product. Three systematic reviews were also evaluated. Once again, there was a failure to consider meeting the standards of normal science in presenting modeled claims for cost-effectiveness.   Type: Commentary

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 798-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Reeves ◽  
Christopher Doran ◽  
Mariko Carey ◽  
Emilie Cameron ◽  
Robert Sanson-Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
First Degree Relatives ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost–utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document