An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.Purpose: This review examines psychometric performance of three widely used generic preference-based measures, that is, EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) and Short-form 6 dimensions (SF-6D) in patients with hearing impairments. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies of patients with hearing impairments where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted and analysed to assess the reliability, validity (known group differences and convergent validity) and responsiveness of the measures across hearing impairments. Results: Fourteen studies (18 papers) were included in the review. HUI3 was the most commonly used utility measures in hearing impairment. In all six studies, the HUI3 detected difference between groups defined by the severity of impairment, and four out of five studies detected statistically significant changes as a result of intervention. The only study available suggested that EQ-5D only had weak ability to discriminate difference between severity groups, and in four out of five studies, EQ-5D failed to detected changes. Only one study involved the SF-6D; thus, the information is too limited to conclude on its performance. Also evidence for the reliability of these measures was not found. Conclusion: Overall, the validity and responsiveness of the HUI3 in hearing impairment was good. The responsiveness of EQ-5D was relatively poor and weak validity was suggested by limited evidence. The evidence on SF-6D was too limited to make any judgment. More head-to-head comparisons of these and other preference measures of health are required.Medical Research Counci

Flavopiridol Protects Against Inflammation by Attenuating Leukocyte-Endothelial Interaction via Inhibition of Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 9

Objective: The cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitor flavopiridol is currently being tested in clinical trials as anticancer drug. Beyond its cell death–inducing action, we hypothesized that flavopiridol affects inflammatory processes. Therefore, we elucidated the action of flavopiridol on leukocyte–endothelial cell interaction and endothelial activation in vivo and in vitro and studied the underlying molecular mechanisms. Methods and Results: Flavopiridol suppressed concanavalin A–induced hepatitis and neutrophil infiltration into liver tissue. Flavopiridol also inhibited tumor necrosis factor-α–induced leukocyte– endothelial cell interaction in the mouse cremaster muscle. Endothelial cells were found to be the major target of flavopiridol, which blocked the expression of endothelial cell adhesion molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, and E-selectin), as well as NF-κB-dependent transcription. Flavopiridol did not affect inhibitor of κB (IκB) kinase, the degradation and phosphorylation of IκBα, nuclear translocation of p65, or nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) DNA-binding activity. By performing a cellular kinome array and a kinase activity panel, we found LIM domain kinase-1 (LIMK1), casein kinase 2, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), protein kinase Cθ (PKCθ), CDK4, CDK6, CDK8, and CDK9 to be influenced by flavopiridol. Using specific inhibitors, as well as RNA interference (RNAi), we revealed that only CDK9 is responsible for the action of flavopiridol. Conclusion: Our study highlights flavopiridol as a promising antiinflammatory compound and inhibition of CDK9 as a novel approach for the treatment of inflammation-associated diseases

HIV testing within general practices in Europe : A mixed-methods systematic review

Funding Information: This work was supported by IWT (Belgium) and the ANRS (France) through the framework of HIVERA JTC 2014. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s).Background: Late diagnosis of HIV infection remains a key challenge in Europe. It is acknowledged that general practitioners (GPs) may contribute greatly to early case finding, yet there is evidence that many diagnostic opportunities are being missed. To further promote HIV testing in primary care and to increase the utility of available research, the existing evidence has been synthesised in a systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Methods: The databases PubMed, Scopus and Embase were searched for the period 2006-2017. Two authors judged independently on the eligibility of studies. Through a mixed-methods systematic review of 29 studies, we provide a description of HIV testing in general practices in Europe, including barriers and facilitators. Results: The findings of the study show that although various approaches to target patients are used by GPs, most tests are still carried out based on the patient's request. Several barriers obstruct HIV testing in general practice. Included are a lack of communication skills on sexual health, lack of knowledge about HIV testing recommendations and epidemic specificities, difficulties with using the complete list of clinical HIV indicator diseases and lack of experience in delivering and communicating test results. The findings also suggest that the provision of specific training, practical tools and promotion programmes has an impact on the testing performance of GPs. Conclusions: GPs could have an increased role in provider-initiated HIV-testing for early case finding. To achieve this objective, solutions to the reported barriers should be identified and testing criteria adapted to primary healthcare defined. Providing guidance and training to better identify priority groups for HIV testing, as well as information on the HIV epidemic's characteristics, will be fundamental to increasing awareness and testing by GPs.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy

Objective: We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Methods: A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient’s disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed. Results: Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. Conclusions: The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy.</p

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis:An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group’s critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group’s base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group’s base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.</p

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

OBJECTIVES: To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting METHODS: Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined. RESULTS: All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from 647,209 euros/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to 15,811 euros/QALY for HUI3. CONCLUSION: Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyse

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis:An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group’s critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group’s base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group’s base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.</p