Life years lost for users of specialized mental healthcare

Background: Mental disorders are burdensome and are associated with increased mortality. Mortality has been researched for various mental disorders, especially in countries with national registries, including the Nordic countries. Yet, knowledge gaps exist around national differences, while also relatively less studies compare mortality of those seeking help for mental disorders in specialized mental healthcare (SMH) by diagnosis. Additional insight into such mortality distributions for SMH users would be beneficial for both policy and research purposes. We aim to describe and compare the mortality in a population of SMH users with the mortality of the general population. Additionally, we aim to investigate mortality differences between sexes and major diagnosis categories: anxiety, depression, schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders, and bipolar disorder.Methods: Mortality and basic demographics were available for a population of N = 10,914 SMH users in the north of The Netherlands from 2010 until 2017. To estimate mortality over the adult lifespan, parametric Gompertz distributions were fitted on observed mortality using interval regression. Life years lost were computed by calculating the difference between integrals of the survival functions for the general population and the study sample, thus correcting for age. Survival for the general population was obtained from Statistics Netherlands (CBS).Results: SMH users were estimated to lose 9.5 life years (95% CI: 9.4–9.6). Every major diagnosis category was associated with a significant loss of life years, ranging from 7.2 (95% CI: 6.4–7.9) years for anxiety patients to 11.7 (95% CI: 11.0–12.5) years for bipolar disorder patients. Significant differences in mortality were observed between male SMH users and female SMH users, with men losing relatively more life years: 11.0 (95% CI: 10.9–11.2) versus 8.3 (95% CI: 8.2–8.4) respectively. This difference was also observed between sexes within every diagnosis, although the difference was insignificant for bipolar disorder. Conclusion: There were significant differences in mortality between SMH users and the general population. Substantial differences were observed between sexes and between diagnoses. Additional attention is required, and possibly specific interventions are needed to reduce the amount of life years lost by SMH users.</p

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer:An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG’s concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.</p

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer:An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG’s concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.</p