Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment: choosing among statins in primary prevention

Decision makers in different health care settings need to weigh the benefits and harms of alternative treatment strategies. Such health care decisions include marketing authorization by regulatory agencies, practice guideline formulation by clinical groups, and treatment selection by prescribers and patients in clinical practice. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a family of formal methods that help make explicit the tradeoffs that decision makers accept between the benefit and risk outcomes of different treatment options. Despite the recent interest in MCDA, certain methodological aspects are poorly understood. This paper presents 7 guidelines for applying MCDA in benefitrisk assessment and illustrates their use in the selection of a statin drug for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We provide guidance on the key methodological issues of how to define the decision problem, how to select a set of nonoverlapping evaluation criteria, how to synthesize and summarize the evidence, how to translate relative measures to absolute ones that permit comparisons between the criteria, how to define suitable scale ranges, how to elicit partial preference information from the decision makers, and how to incorporate uncertainty in the analysis. Our example on statins indicates that fluvastatin is likely to be the most preferred drug by our decision maker and that this result is insensitive to the amount of preference information incorporated in the analysis

The relative responsiveness of test instruments can be estimated using a meta-analytic approach:an illustration with treatments for depression

Objectives: We present a meta-analytic method that combines information on treatment effects from different instruments from a network of randomized trials to estimate instrument relative responsiveness. Study Design and Setting: Five depression-test instruments [Beck Depression Inventory (BDI I/II), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), Hamilton Rating for Depression 17 and 24 items, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating] and three generic quality of life measures [EuroQoL (EQ-5D), SF36 mental component summary (SF36 MCS), and physical component summary (SF36 PCS)] were compared. Randomized trials of treatments for depression reporting outcomes on any two or more of these instruments were identified. Information on the within-trial ratios of standardized treatment effects was pooled across the studies to estimate relative responsiveness. Results: The between-instrument ratios of standardized treatment effects vary across trials, with a coefficient of variation of 13% (95% credible interval: 6%, 25%). There were important differences between the depression measures, with PHQ9 being the most responsive instrument and BDI the least. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF36 PCS was poor. SF36 MCS performed similarly to depression instruments. Conclusion: Information on relative responsiveness of several test instruments can be pooled across networks of trials reporting at least two outcomes, allowing comparison and ranking of test instruments that may never have been compared directly.</p

Symptom lead times in lung and colorectal cancers: What are the benefits of symptom-based approaches to early diagnosis?

This is the final version of the article. Available from Cancer Research UK via the DOI in this record.Background: Individuals with undiagnosed lung and colorectal cancers present with non-specific symptoms in primary care more often than matched controls. Increased access to diagnostic services for patients with symptoms generates more early-stage diagnoses, but the mechanisms for this are only partially understood. Methods: We re-analysed a UK-based case-control study to estimate the Symptom Lead Time (SLT) distribution for a range of potential symptom criteria for investigation. Symptom Lead Time is the time between symptoms caused by cancer and eventual diagnosis, and is analogous to Lead Time in a screening programme. We also estimated the proportion of symptoms in lung and colorectal cancer cases that are actually caused by the cancer. Results: Mean Symptom Lead Times were between 4.1 and 6.0 months, with medians between 2.0 and 3.2 months. Symptom Lead Time did not depend on stage at diagnosis, nor which criteria for investigation are adopted. Depending on the criteria, an estimated 27-48% of symptoms in individuals with as yet undiagnosed lung cancer, and 12-32% with undiagnosed colorectal cancer are not caused by the cancer. Conclusions: In most cancer cases detected by a symptom-based programme, the symptoms are caused by cancer. These cases have a short lead time and benefit relatively little. However, in a significant minority of cases cancer detection is serendipitous. This group experiences the benefits of a standard screening programme, a substantial mean lead time and a higher probability of early-stage diagnosis.This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme, RP-PG-0608-10045

Overall vertical transmission of HCV, transmission net of clearance, and timing of transmission

Background: It is widely accepted that the risk of HCV vertical transmission (VT) is 5-6% in mono-infected women, and that 25-40% of HCV infection clears spontaneously within 5 years. However, there is no consensus on how VT rates should be estimated, and there is a lack of information on VT rates “net” of clearance. // Methods: We re-analysed data on 1749 children in 3 prospective cohorts to obtain coherent estimates of overall VT rate and VT rates “net” of clearance at different ages. Clearance rates were used to impute the proportion of uninfected children who had been infected and then cleared before testing negative. The proportion of transmission early in utero, late in utero and at delivery was estimated from data on the proportion of HCV RNA positive within three days of birth, and differences between elective caesarean and non-elective caesarean deliveries. // Findings: Overall VT rates were 7.2% (95% credible interval 5.6-8.9) in mothers who were HIV negative and 12.1% (8.6-16.8) in HIV-co-infected women. The corresponding rates net of clearance at 5 years were 2.4% (1.1-4.1) and 4.1% (1.7-7.3). We estimated that 24.8% (12.1-40.8) of infections occur early in utero, 66.0% (42.5-83.3) later in utero, and 9.3% (0.5-30.6) during delivery. // Conclusion: Overall VT rates are about 24% higher than previously assumed, but the risk of infection persisting beyond age 5 years is about 38% lower. The results can inform design of trials of to prevent or treat pediatric HCV infection, and strategies to manage children exposed in utero

Modelling the potential effectiveness of hepatitis C screening and treatment strategies during pregnancy in Egypt and Ukraine

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatitis C (HCV) test and treat campaigns currently excludes pregnant women. Pregnancy offers a unique opportunity for HCV screening and to potentially initiate direct-acting-antiviral treatment. We explored HCV screening and treatment strategies in two lower middle-income countries with high HCV prevalence, Egypt and Ukraine. METHODS: Country-specific probabilistic decision models were developed to simulate a cohort of pregnant women. We compared five strategies: S0, targeted risk-based screening and deferred treatment (DT) to after pregnancy/breastfeeding; S1, WHO risk-based screening and DT; S2, WHO risk-based screening and targeted treatment (treat women with risk factors for HCV vertical transmission (VT)); S3, universal screening and targeted treatment during pregnancy; S4, universal screening and treatment. Maternal and infant HCV outcomes were projected. RESULTS: S0 resulted in the highest proportion of women undiagnosed:59% and 20% in Egypt and Ukraine, respectively, with 0% maternal cure by delivery and VT estimated at 6.5% and 7.9%, respectively. WHO risk-based screening and DT (S1) increased the proportion of women diagnosed with no change in maternal cure or VT. Universal screening and treatment during pregnancy (S4) resulted in the highest proportion of women diagnosed and cured by delivery (65% and 70% respectively), and lower levels of VT (3.4% and 3.6% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first models to explore HCV screening and treatment strategies in pregnancy, which will be critical in informing future care and policy as more safety/efficacy data emerge. Universal screening and treatment in pregnancy could potentially improve both maternal and infant outcomes. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: In the context of two lower middle-income countries with high HCV burden (Egypt and Ukraine), we designed a decision analytic model to explore five different HCV testing and treatment strategies for pregnant women, with the assumption that treatment was safe and efficacious for use in pregnancy. Assuming DAAs in pregnancy reduced vertical transmission, model findings indicate optimal maternal and infant benefits with provision of universal (rather than risk-based targeted) screening and treatment during pregnancy: the proportion of women diagnosed and cured by delivery would be 65% in Egypt and 70% in Ukraine (versus 0% with standard of care), and the proportion of infants that would be infected at the age of 6 months would decrease from 6.5% to 3.4% in Egypt, and from 7.9% to 3.6% in Ukraine, compared to standard of care. While future trials are needed to assess safety and efficacy of DAA treatment in pregnancy and impact on VT, there is increasing recognition that the elimination of HCV cannot leave entire subpopulations of pregnant women and young children behind. Our findings will be critical in informing policymakers in improving screening and treatment recommendations for pregnant women

Accuracy of UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC) "AbC-19 Rapid Test" for detection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in key workers: test accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Test accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory based evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: 2847 key workers (healthcare staff, fire and rescue officers, and police officers) in England in June 2020 (268 with a previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result (median 63 days previously), 2579 with unknown previous infection status); and 1995 pre-pandemic blood donors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AbC-19 sensitivity and specificity, estimated using known negative (pre-pandemic) and known positive (PCR confirmed) samples as reference standards and secondly using the Roche Elecsys anti-nucleoprotein assay, a highly sensitive laboratory immunoassay, as a reference standard in samples from key workers. RESULTS: Test result bands were often weak, with positive/negative discordance by three trained laboratory staff for 3.9% of devices. Using consensus readings, for known positive and negative samples sensitivity was 92.5% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 95.1%) and specificity was 97.9% (97.2% to 98.4%). Using an immunoassay reference standard, sensitivity was 94.2% (90.7% to 96.5%) among PCR confirmed cases but 84.7% (80.6% to 88.1%) among other people with antibodies. This is consistent with AbC-19 being more sensitive when antibody concentrations are higher, as people with PCR confirmation tended to have more severe disease whereas only 62% (218/354) of seropositive participants had had symptoms. If 1 million key workers were tested with AbC-19 and 10% had actually been previously infected, 84 700 true positive and 18 900 false positive results would be projected. The probability that a positive result was correct would be 81.7% (76.8% to 85.8%). CONCLUSIONS: AbC-19 sensitivity was lower among unselected populations than among PCR confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the scope for overestimation of assay performance in studies involving only PCR confirmed cases, owing to "spectrum bias." Assuming that 10% of the tested population have had SARS-CoV-2 infection, around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 56609224.The study was commissioned by the UK Government’s Department of Health and Social Care. It was funded and implemented by Public Health England, supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Portfolio. The Department of Health and Social Care received a report containing these data on 10/9/2020, but had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of results, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish. DW acknowledges support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Genomics and Data Enabling at the University of Warwick. HEJ, AEA, MH and IO acknowledge support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol. STP is supported by an NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2016-09-018). Participants in the COMPARE study were recruited with the active collaboration of NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) England (www.nhsbt.nhs.uk). Funding for COMPARE was provided by NHSBT and the NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Donor Health and Genomics (NIHR BTRU-2014-10024). The academic coordinating centre for COMPARE was supported by core funding from: NIHR BTRU, UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194) and the NIHR [Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust]. This work was supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Division), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome. JD holds a British Heart Foundation Professorship and a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator Award. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Symptom lead times in lung and colorectal cancers: what are the benefits of symptom-based approaches to early diagnosis?

BACKGROUND: Individuals with undiagnosed lung and colorectal cancers present with non-specific symptoms in primary care more often than matched controls. Increased access to diagnostic services for patients with symptoms generates more early-stage diagnoses, but the mechanisms for this are only partially understood. METHODS: We re-analysed a UK-based case–control study to estimate the Symptom Lead Time (SLT) distribution for a range of potential symptom criteria for investigation. Symptom Lead Time is the time between symptoms caused by cancer and eventual diagnosis, and is analogous to Lead Time in a screening programme. We also estimated the proportion of symptoms in lung and colorectal cancer cases that are actually caused by the cancer. RESULTS: Mean Symptom Lead Times were between 4.1 and 6.0 months, with medians between 2.0 and 3.2 months. Symptom Lead Time did not depend on stage at diagnosis, nor which criteria for investigation are adopted. Depending on the criteria, an estimated 27–48% of symptoms in individuals with as yet undiagnosed lung cancer, and 12–32% with undiagnosed colorectal cancer are not caused by the cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In most cancer cases detected by a symptom-based programme, the symptoms are caused by cancer. These cases have a short lead time and benefit relatively little. However, in a significant minority of cases cancer detection is serendipitous. This group experiences the benefits of a standard screening programme, a substantial mean lead time and a higher probability of early-stage diagnosis

Sera selected from national STI surveillance system shows Chlamydia trachomatis PgP3 antibody correlates with time since infection and number of previous infections

Pgp3 seropositivity by time since most recent chlamydia diagnosis on a) the indirect ELISA and b) the double-antigen ELISA (Denominator labelled on bar. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals).</p