Familial Hypercholesterolaemia is an autosomal, dominant genetic disorder that leads to elevated blood cholesterol and a dramatically increased risk of atherosclerosis. It is perceived as a rare condition. However it affects 1 in 250 of the population globally, making it an important public health concern. In communities with founder effects, higher disease prevalences are observed.We discuss the genetic basis of familial hypercholesterolaemia, examining the distribution of variants known to be associated with the condition across the exons of the genes LDLR, ApoB, PCSK9 and LDLRAP1. We also discuss screening programmes for familial hypercholesterolaemia and their cost-effectiveness. Diagnosis typically occurs using one of the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DCLN), Simon Broome Register (SBR) or Make Early Diagnosis to Prevent Early Death (MEDPED) criteria, each of which requires a different set of patient data. New cases can be identified by screening the family members of an index case that has been identified as a result of referral to a lipid clinic in a process called cascade screening. Alternatively, universal screening may be used whereby a population is systematically screened.It is currently significantly more cost effective to identify familial hypercholesterolaemia cases through cascade screening than universal screening. However, the cost of sequencing patient DNA has fallen dramatically in recent years and if the rate of progress continues, this may change.

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email.Paying by official purchase order You can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he research findings from the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme directly influence key decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) who rely on HTA outputs to help raise standards of care. HTA findings also help to improve the quality of the service in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' that is being developed to improve the evidence of clinical practice throughout the NHS.The HTA Programme was set up in 1993. Its role is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care.The HTA programme commissions research only on topics where it has identified key gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. Suggestions for topics are actively sought from people working in the NHS, the public, consumer groups and professional bodies such as Royal Colleges and NHS Trusts.Research suggestions are carefully considered by panels of independent experts (including consumers) whose advice results in a ranked list of recommended research priorities. The HTA Programme then commissions the research team best suited t...

No abstract

No abstract

An increased understanding of the biology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has fuelled identification of biomarkers with potential to drive a stratified precision medicine care approach in this common malignancy. We conducted a systematic review of health economic assessments of molecular biomarkers (MBMs) and their employment in patient stratification in CRC. Our analysis revealed scenarios where health economic analyses have been applied to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MBM-guided clinical interventions: (i) evaluation of Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) status to identify patients susceptible to 5-Fluouracil toxicity; (ii) determination of Uridine 5′-diphospho- glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 gene (UGT1A1) polymorphism status to help guide irinotecan treatment; (iii) assessment of RAS/RAF mutational status to stratify patients for chemotherapy or Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) therapy and (iv) multigene expression analysis (Oncotype Dx) to identify and spare non-responders the debilitating effects of particular chemotherapy interventions. Our findings indicate that Oncotype Dx is cost-effective in high income settings within specific price points, by limiting treatment toxicity in CRC patients. DPYD status testing may also be cost effective in certain settings to avoid specific 5-FU toxicities post treatment. In contrast, current research does not support UGT1A1 polymorphism status as a cost-effective guide to irinotecan dosing, while the health economic evidence to support testing of KRAS/NRAS mutational status and chemo/EGFR therapy choice was inconclusive, despite its widespread adoption in CRC treatment management. However, we also show that there is a paucity of high-quality cost-effectiveness studies to support clinical application of precision medicine approaches in CRC.

No abstract

In his last two State of the Union addresses, President Barack Obama has focused on the need to deliver innovative solutions to improve human health, through the Precision Medicine Initiative in 2015 and the recently announced Cancer Moonshot in 2016. Precision cancer care has delivered clear patient benefit, but even for high-impact medicines such as imatinib mesylate (Glivec) in chronic myeloid leukaemia, the excitement at the success of this practice-changing clinical intervention has been somewhat tempered by the escalating price of this ‘poster child' for precision cancer medicine (PCM). Recent studies on the costs of cancer drugs have revealed significant price differentials, which are a major causative factor behind disparities in the access to new generations of immunological and molecularly targeted agents. In this perspective, we will discuss the benefits of PCM to modern cancer control, but also emphasise how increasing costs are rendering the current approaches to integrating the paradigm of PCM unsustainable. Despite the ever increasing pressure on cancer and health care budgets, innovation will and must continue. Value-based frameworks offer one of the most rational approaches for policymakers committed to improving cancer outcomes through a public health approach.

Precision diagnostic testing (PDT) employs appropriate biomarkers to identify cancer patients that may optimally respond to precision medicine (PM) approaches, such as treatments with targeted agents and immuno‐oncology drugs. To date, there are no published systematic appraisals evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of PDT in non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To address this gap, we conducted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses searches for the years 2009–2019. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were employed to screen, assess and extract data. Employing base costs, life years gained or quality‐adjusted life years, as well as willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold for each country, net monetary benefit was calculated to determine cost‐effectiveness of each intervention. Thirty‐seven studies (50%) were included for analysis; a further 37 (50%) were excluded, having failed population‐, intervention‐, comparator‐, outcomes‐ and study‐design criteria. Within the 37 studies included, we defined 64 scenarios. Eleven scenarios compared PDT‐guided PM with non‐guided therapy [epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ), n = 5; programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1), n = 6]. Twenty‐eight scenarios compared PDT‐guided PM with chemotherapy alone (anaplastic lymphoma kinase, n = 3; EGFR , n = 17; PD‐L1, n = 8). Twenty‐five scenarios compared PDT‐guided PM with chemotherapy alone, while varying the PDT approach. Thirty‐four scenarios (53%) were cost‐effective, 28 (44%) were not cost‐effective, and two were marginal, dependent on their country’s WTP threshold. When PDT‐guided therapy was compared with a therapy‐for‐all patients approach, all scenarios (100%) proved cost‐effective. Seven of 37 studies had been structured appropriately to assess PDT‐PM cost‐effectiveness. Within these seven studies, all evaluated scenarios were cost‐effective. However, 81% of studies had been poorly designed. Our systematic analysis implies that more robust health economic evaluation could help identify additional approaches towards PDT cost‐effectiveness, underpinning value‐based care and enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC.