The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England

Background: Nivolumab was the first programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate long-term survival benefit in a clinical trial setting for advanced melanoma patients. Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus ipilimumab and dacarbazine for BRAF mutation-negative patients and versus ipilimumab, dabrafenib, and vemurafenib for BRAF mutation-positive patients. Covariate-adjusted parametric curves for time to progression, pre-progression survival, and post-progression survival were fitted based on patient-level data from two trials and long-term ipilimumab survival data. Indirect treatment comparisons between nivolumab, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine were informed by these covariate-adjusted parametric curves, controlling for differences in patient characteristics. Kaplan–Meier data from the literature were digitised and used to fit progression-free and overall survival curves for dabrafenib and vemurafenib. Patient utilities and resource use data were based on trial data or the literature. Patients are assumed to receive nivolumab until there is no further clinical benefit, assumed to be the first of progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or 2 years of treatment. Results: Nivolumab is the most cost-effective treatment option in BRAF mutation-negative and mutation-positive patients, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £24,483 and £17,362 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The model results are most sensitive to assumptions regarding treatment duration for nivolumab and the parameters of the fitted parametric survival curves. Conclusions: Nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment for advanced melanoma patients in England

How common and frequent is heterosexual anal intercourse among South Africans? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: HIV is transmitted more effectively during anal intercourse (AI) than vaginal intercourse (VI). However, patterns of heterosexual AI practice and its contribution to South Africa's generalized epidemic remain unclear. We aimed to determine how common and frequent heterosexual AI is in South Africa. METHODS: We searched for studies reporting the proportion practising heterosexual AI (prevalence) and/or the number of AI and unprotected AI (UAI) acts (frequency) in South Africa from 1990 to 2015. Stratified random-effects meta-analysis by sub-groups was used to produce pooled estimates and assess the influence of participant and study characteristics on AI prevalence. We also estimated the fraction of all sex acts which were AI or UAI and compared condom use during VI and AI. RESULTS: Of 41 included studies, 31 reported on AI prevalence and 14 on frequency, over various recall periods. AI prevalence was high across different recall periods for sexually active general-risk populations (e.g. lifetime = 18.4% [95%CI:9.4-27.5%], three-month = 20.3% [6.1-34.7%]), but tended to be even higher in higher-risk populations such as STI patients and female sex workers (e.g. lifetime = 23.2% [0.0-47.4%], recall period not stated = 40.1% [36.2-44.0%]). Prevalence was higher in studies using more confidential interview methods. Among general and higher-risk populations, 1.2-40.0% and 0.7-21.0% of all unprotected sex acts were UAI, respectively. AI acts were as likely to be condom protected as vaginal acts. CONCLUSION: Reported heterosexual AI is common but variable among South Africans. Nationally and regionally representative sexual behaviour studies that use standardized recall periods and confidential interview methods, to aid comparison across studies and minimize reporting bias, are needed. Such data could be used to estimate the extent to which AI contributes to South Africa's HIV epidemic

Paris and the Arts 1851-1896: From the Goncourt Journal

viii.374 hal.;ill.;21 c