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.     

Prognostic tools for hypertrophic scar formation based on fundamental differences in systemic immunity

Unpredictable hypertrophic scarring (HS) occurs after approximately 35% of all surgical procedures and causes significant physical and psychological complaints. Parallel to the need to understanding the mechanisms underlying HS formation, a prognostic tool is needed. The objective was to determine whether (systemic) immunological differences exist between patients who develop HS and those who develop normotrophic scars (NS) and to assess whether those differences can be used to identify patients prone to developing HS. A prospective cohort study with NS and HS groups in which (a) cytokine release by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and (b) the irritation threshold (IT) after an irritant (sodium lauryl sulphate) patch test was evaluated. Univariate regression analysis of PBMC cytokine secretion showed that low MCP‐1, IL‐8, IL‐18 and IL‐23 levels have a strong correlation with HS (P < .010‐0.004; AUC = 0.790‐0.883). Notably, combinations of two or three cytokines (TNF‐a, MCP‐1 and IL‐23; AUC: 0.942, Nagelkerke R²: 0.727) showed an improved AUC indicating a better correlation with HS than single cytokine analysis. These combination models produce good prognostic results over a broad probability range (sensitivity: 93.8%, specificity 86.7%, accuracy 90,25% between probability 0.3 and 0.7). Furthermore, the HS group had a lower IT than the NS group and an accuracy of 68%. In conclusion, very fundamental immunological differences exist between individuals who develop HS and those who do not, whereas the cytokine assay forms the basis of a predictive prognostic test for HS formation, the less invasive, easily performed irritant skin patch test is more accessible for daily practice.     

Evaluation of vilazodone for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders

Introduction: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) significantly contribute to the global burden of disease. Vilazodone, a combined serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist, is an approved therapy for the treatment of MDD and which has been further investigated for GAD.

Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vilazodone and provides an evaluation of the clinical usefulness of vilazodone for the treatment of MDD and anxiety disorders. A literature search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.

Expert opinion: Studies have shown that vilazodone is significantly superior to placebo. However, vilazodone cannot as yet be recommended as a first-line treatment option for MDD as it is unclear whether the drug’s dual mechanism of action provides greater efficacy than prevailing treatment options. Moreover, more phase IV studies are needed to establish its efficacy and long-term safety in larger and more diverse populations. Although vilazodone may have an additional advantage for the treatment of anxiety symptoms in MDD, here also additional studies are required to confirm its efficacy over and above SSRI alternatives and other antidepressant treatments. Therefore, presently, vilazodone should be considered as a second- or third-line treatment option for MDD and GAD.     

Are Medicare's Nursing Home Compare Ratings Accurate Predictors of 90-Day Complications,Readmission, and Bundle Cost for Patients Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Background

Nursing Home Compare (NHC) ratings, created and maintained by Medicare, are used by both hospitals and consumers to aid in the skilled nursing facility (SNF) selection process. To date, no studies have linked NHC ratings to actual episode-based outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether NHC ratings are valid predictors of 90-day complications, readmission, and bundle costs for patients discharged to an SNF after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA).