A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

Higher Preimplantation Opioid Doses Associated With Long‐Term Spinal Cord Stimulation Failure in 211 Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

ObjectiveSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We studied the effect of preimplantation opioid use on SCS outcome and the effect of SCS on opioid use during a two-year follow-up period.Materials and methodsThe study cohort included 211 consecutive FBSS patients who underwent an SCS trial from January 1997 to March 2014. Participants were divided into groups, which were as follows: 1) SCS trial only (n = 47), 2) successful SCS (implanted and in use throughout the two-year follow-up period, n = 131), and 3) unsuccessful SCS (implanted but later explanted or revised due to inadequate pain relief, n = 29). Patients who underwent explantation for other reasons (n = 4) were excluded. Opioid purchase data from January 1995 to March 2016 were retrieved from national registries.ResultsHigher preimplantation opioid doses associated with unsuccessful SCS (ROC: AUC = 0.66, p = 0.009), with 35 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day as the optimal cutoff value. All opioids were discontinued in 23% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.004). Strong opioids were discontinued in 39% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.04). Mean opioid dose escalated from 18 ± 4 MME/day to 36 ± 6 MME/day with successful SCS and from 22 ± 8 MME/day to 82 ± 21 MME/day with unsuccessful SCS (p < 0.001).ConclusionsHigher preimplantation opioid doses were associated with SCS failure, suggesting the need for opioid tapering before implantation. With continuous SCS therapy and no explantation or revision due to inadequate pain relief, 39% of FBSS patients discontinued strong opioids, and 23% discontinued all opioids. This indicates that SCS should be considered before detrimental dose escalation.     

Living with the financial consequences of cancer: A life course perspective

Abstract

Purpose

Financial hardship can be a major cause of distress among persons with cancer, resulting in chronic stress and impacting physical and emotional health. This paper provides an analysis of the lived experience of cancer patients’ financial hardship from diagnosis to post-treatment.     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.