Background Clinical evidence supports the use of genetic counselling and BRCA1/2 testing for women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Currently, screen-and-treat strategies are not reimbursed in the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System (SUS). The aim of this modelling study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a gene-based screen-and-treat strategy for BRCA1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by preventive interventions compared with no screening. Methods Adopting the SUS perspective, a Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of healthy women aged 30 years that fulfilled the criteria for BRCA1/2 testing according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. For women who tested positive, preventive options included intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The Markov model comprised the health states 'well', 'breast cancer', 'death' and two post-cancer states. Outcomes were the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and the incremental costs per life-year gained (LYG). Data were mainly obtained by a literature review. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. Results In the base case, the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in additional costs of 3515 Brazilian reais

Although BRCA1/2 genetic testing in developed countries is part of the reality for high-risk patients for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), the same is not true for upper-middle-income countries. For that reason, this study aimed to evaluate whether the BRCA1/2 genetic test and preventive strategies for women at high risk for HBOC are cost-effective compared to not performing these strategies in an upper-middle-income country. Adopting a payer perspective, a Markov model with a time horizon of 70 years was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of healthy women aged 30 years that fulfilled the BRCA1/2 testing criteria according to the guidelines. Transition probabilities were calculated based on real-world data of women tested for BRCA1/2 germline mutations in a cancer reference hospital from 2011 to 2020. We analyzed 275 BRCA mutated index cases and 356 BRCA mutation carriers that were first- or second-degree relatives of the patients. Costs were based on the Brazilian public health system reimbursement values. Health state utilities were retrieved from literature. The BRCA1/2 genetic test and preventive strategies result in more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$ 11,900.31 (U$ 5,504.31)/QALY. This result can represent a strong argument in favor of implementing genetic testing strategies for high-risk women even in countries with upper-middle income, considering not only the cancer prevention possibilities associated with the genetic testing but also its cost-effectiveness to the health system. These strategies are cost-effective, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$ 25,000 (U$ 11,563.37)/QALY, indicating that the government should consider offering them for women at high risk for HBOC. The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pasireotide, cabergoline, ketoconazole, levoketoconazole, metyrapone, osilodrostat, and temozolomide for the treatment of Cushing’s disease (CD).MethodsThe primary outcomes were the proportion of CD control, adverse events (AE), and reduction of urinary free cortisol. Search strategies were applied to Embase, Medline, and CENTRAL. Independent reviewers assessed the study eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Standardized mean difference was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data (i.e., pre- and post-intervention). Random meta-analyses for the proportion of CD control and AE were conducted.ResultsTwenty-nine controlled and non-controlled studies were included. No study with temozolomide and levoketoconazole and one study with osilodrostat fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analyses of proportion of CD control was 35% for cabergoline (95% CI: 27–43%, six studies, 141 participants), 44% for pasireotide (95% CI: 25–35%, eight studies, 522 participants), 41% for ketoconazole (95% CI: 36–46%, six studies, 450 participants), 66% for metyrapone (95% CI: 46–87%, four studies, 66 participants), and of 66.4% for osilodrostat (95% CI: 57.9, 74.3, 97 participants, one study). One study compared two different treatments (cabergoline vs. ketoconazole), and no statistical difference was observed in CD control (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.87, 14 participants, very low certainty of evidence). The most frequent AE associated with pasireotide was hyperglycemia, dizziness and nausea with cabergoline and metyrapone, and elevated transaminases with ketoconazole.ConclusionThe superiority of one drug over another could not be determined due to lack of controlled studies, but the proportion of disease control identified in our meta-analysis may support clinical decision. New therapeutic options should be investigated due to the limited efficacy and tolerability of the currently available medical treatment for patients with Cushing’s disease.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020205567, identifier CRD42020205567.

Background Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used a random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto’s one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1%. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results One hundred and six RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76–1.26, 33 trials, 15,942 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). However, there was a moderate certainty of evidence that CQ/HCQ increases the incidence of cardiac complications (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.10–2.38, 16 trials, 9908 participants). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: − 0.4–6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions CQ and HCQ probably do not increase SAEs, with low frequency of these adverse events on malarial and non-malarial conditions. However, they may increase cardiac complications especially in patients with COVID-19. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy was observed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020177818

IntroductionDespite the increasing number of drugs and various guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), several patients continue with the disease uncontrolled. There are several non-pharmacological treatments available for managing T2DM, but various of them have never been compared directly to determine the best strategies.ObjectiveThis study will evaluate the comparative effects of non-pharmacological strategies in the management of T2DM in primary care or community settings.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), and will include randomised controlled trials if one of the following interventions were applied in adult patients with T2DM: nutritional therapy, physical activity, psychological interventions, social interventions, multidisciplinary lifestyle interventions, diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES), technology-enabled DSMES, interventions delivered only either by pharmacists or by nurses, self-blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin-treated T2DM, health coaching, benchmarking and usual care. The primary outcome will be glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (%)), and the secondary outcomes will be weight loss, quality of life, patient satisfaction, frequency of cardiovascular events and deaths, number of patients in each group with HbA1c <7, adverse events and medication adherence. We have developed search strategies for Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Trip database, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Australasian Medical Index and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Four reviewers will assess the studies for their eligibility and their risk of bias in pairs and independently. An NMA will be performed using a Bayesian hierarchical model, and the treatment hierarchy will be obtained using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. To determine our confidence in an overall treatment ranking from the NMA, we will follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationAs no primary data collection will be undertaken, no formal ethical assessment is required. We plan to present the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conferences and the popular press.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019127856.

The cost-effectiveness of genetic screen-and-treat strategies for women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer often depends on the women’s willingness to make use of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). To explore the uptake rates of RRM and RRSO applied in health economic modeling studies and the impact of uptake rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), we conducted a scoping literature review. In addition, using our own model, we conducted a value of information (VOI) analysis. Among the 19 models included in the review, the uptake rates of RRM ranged from 6% to 47% (RRSO: 10% to 88%). Fifty-seven percent of the models applied retrospective data obtained from registries, hospital records, or questionnaires. According to the models’ deterministic sensitivity analyses, there is a clear trend that a lower uptake rate increased the ICER and vice versa. Our VOI analysis showed high decision uncertainty associated with the uptake rates. In the future, uptake rates should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies. Prospective studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

IntroductionMagnetic Resonance Image-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a non-invasive treatment option for palliative patients with painful bone metastases. Early evidence suggests that MR-HIFU is associated with similar overall treatment response, but more rapid pain palliation compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). This modelling study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MR-HIFU as an alternative treatment option for painful bone metastases from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).Materials and methodsA microsimulation model with lifelong time horizon and one-month cycle length was developed. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), strategy A (MR-HIFU as first-line treatment or as retreatment option in case of persistent pain or only partial pain relief after EBRT) was compared to strategy B (EBRT alone) for patients with bone metastases due to breast, prostate, or lung cancer. Input parameters used for the model were extracted from the literature. Results were expressed as EUR per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR per pain response (i.e., months spent with complete or partial pain response). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of results, and a value of information analysis was conducted.ResultsCompared to strategy B, strategy A resulted in additional costs (EUR 399) and benefits (0.02 QALYs and 0.95 months with pain response). In the base case, the resulting ICERs (strategy A vs. strategy B) are EUR 19,845/QALY and EUR 421 per pain response. Offering all patients MR-HIFU as first-line treatment would increase the ICER by 50% (31,048 EUR/QALY). PSA showed that at a (hypothetical) willingness to pay of EUR 20,000/QALY, the probability of MR-HIFU being cost-effective was 52%. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for the benefit population in Germany is approximately EUR 190 Mio.ConclusionAlthough there is considerable uncertainty, the results demonstrate that introducing MR-HIFU as a treatment alternative for painful bone metastases might be cost-effective for the German SHI. The high EVPI indicate that further studies to reduce uncertainty would be worthwhile.

No abstract