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.     

Managing healthcare worker well‐being in an Australian emergency department during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Emergency Medicine staff in Australia and New Zealand are at the forefront of the healthcare response to COVID‐19. This article describes a well‐being plan for ED staff that has been devised to mitigate against the negative psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic.     

Optimal combination of antiangiogenic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

The success of sorafenib in prolonging survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) makes therapeutic inhibition of angiogenesis a component of treatment for HCC. To enhance therapeutic efficacy, overcome drug resistance and reduce toxicity, combination of antiangiogenic agents with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or other targeted agents were evaluated. Nevertheless, the use of antiangiogenic therapy remains suboptimal regarding dosage, schedule and duration of therapy. The issue is further complicated by combination antiangiogenesis to other cytotoxic or biologic agents. There is no way to determine which patients are most likely respond to a given form of antiangiogenic therapy. Activation of alternative pathways associated with disease progression in patients undergoing antiangiogenic therapy has also been recognized. There is increasing importance in identifying, validating and standardizing potential response biomarkers for antiangiogenesis therapy for HCC patients. In this review, biomarkers for antiangiogenesis therapy including systemic, circulating, tissue and imaging ones are summarized. The strength and deficit of circulating and imaging biomarkers were further demonstrated by a series of studies in HCC patients receiving radiotherapy with or without thalidomide.