Economic evaluation of genomic/genetic tests: a review and future directions

It has been suggested that health economists need to improve their methods in order to meet the challenges of evaluating genomic/genetic tests. In this article, we set out twelve challenges identified from a rapid review of the literature and suggest solutions to the challenges identified. Two challenges were common to all economic evaluations: choice of perspective and time-horizon. Five challenges were relevant for all diagnostic technologies: complexity of analysis; range of costs; under-developed evidence base; behavioral aspects; and choice of outcome metrics. The final five challenges were pertinent for genomic tests and only these may require methodological development: heterogeneity of tests and platforms, increasing stratification, capturing personal utility; incidental findings; and spillover effects. Current methods of economic evaluation are generally able to cope with genomic/genetic tests, although a renewed focus on specific decision-makers’ needs and a willingness to move away from cost-utility analysis may be required. Certain analysts may be constrained by reference cases developed primarily for the assessment of pharmaceuticals. The combined impact of multiple challenges may require analysts to be particularly careful in setting the scope of their analysis in order to ensure that feasibility is balanced with usefulness to the decision maker. A key issue is the under-developed evidence-base and it may be necessary to rethink translation processes to ensure sufficient, relevant evidence is available to support economic evaluation and adoption of genomic/genetic tests

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey

Background: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. Methods: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated cross-sectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. Findings: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280 327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29–0·54) to 0·06% (0·04–0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17–24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17–24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45–68%, dependent on calendar time. Interpretation: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards. Funding: Department of Health and Social Care

A collaborative approach to exploring the future of Cancer treatment and care in relation to Precision Medicine: A design perspective.

The Precision Medicine and the Future of Cancer project was jointly conceived by the Innovation School at Glasgow School of Art and the Institute of Cancer Sciences at the University of Glasgow. Graduating year Product Design students from the Innovation School were presented with a challenge-based project to produce a vision of the future based on current trends that relate to Precision Medicine(PM) and Cancer treatment. This project involved working closely with scientists, clinicians, patients, industry and academic professionals from Glasgow University, staff at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and Clinical Innovation Zone, staff at Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Patient Representatives and external design experts from Studio AndThen and GOODD design consultancy. The objective of this project was to investigate, in both analytical and speculative ways, future forms and functions of cancer treatment and care in relation to Precision Medicine, to develop future scenarios and design artefacts, services, and the experiences associated with them. One of the most significant societal shifts currently taking place within the field of PM is the transformation around what it means to be a patient and a professional working within this context. The public’s role is developing beyond once-passive patients into stakeholders valued within the medical industry and healthcare sector for their participation in clinical trials, and contribution towards policy-making and decision-making committees. This new dynamic is changing the traditional patient-doctor relationship and challenging the hegemony of medical practice at an institutional level. The impetus for this shift is relentless technological acceleration and increased scientific research, in particular driven by advances in PM. This project asked students to consider what will happen in a cancer landscape ten years from now, where PM has evolved to the extent that new forms of medical practice, cancer treatment and care transform how we interact with each other, with professionals and the world around us. The brief gave students the opportunity to reflect on the underlying complexities regarding the future of health, technological acceleration, post-capitalism and human agency, to envision a future world context, develop it as an experiential exhibit, and produce the designed products, services and experiences for the people who might live and work within it. The project was divided into two sections: The first was a collaborative stage where groups of students were assigned a specific area of focus from Social, Technological, Economic, Ethical, Educational, Political, Legal, Ecological [STEEEPLE]. These groups focused on researching and exploring their specific lenses and gathering as much information and understanding while working with external experts to further their knowledge. This group stage culminated in an exhibition of the collaborative understanding of what the future could look like in 10 years from now, after exploring the possible consequences of current actions. The second stage saw students explore their individual response to the world that had been defined in the first stage. Each student had their own response to the research by iteratively creating a design outcome that was appropriate to the subject matter. This culminated in each student having created a design product/service/experience relating to the future scenario. A full report (Project Process Journal [PPJ]) is included within the repository of each student which breaks down their process of designing and the outcome they have designed. The project aims to tackle the emerging possibilities where medical professionals and design can collaborate, to create a future where forms of medical practice are more preventative and are more appropriate for an aging population now and into the future. The deposited materials are arranged as follows: Readme files - two readme files relate to stage one and stage two of the project as outlined above. Overview poster - gives a visual overview of the structure and timeline of the project. Data folders - the data folders for stage one of the project are named for the lens through which each group viewed possible futures. The data folders for stage two of the project are named for the individual students who conducted the work

Symbiotic Futures: Health, Well-being and Care in the Post-Covid World

The "Symbiotic Futures: Health, Well-being and Care in the Post-Covid World" project was jointly conceived by the Innovation School at Glasgow School of Art and the Institute of Cancer Sciences at the University of Glasgow. The project partnership involved a community of experts working across both organisations including the University of Glasgow’s new Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC). Future experiences is a collaborative, futures-focused design project where students benefit from the input of a community of experts to design speculative future worlds and experiences based on research within key societal contexts. This iteration of the project asked the students to consider what happens in the Post-Covid landscape ten years from now, where symbiotic experiences of health, well-being and care have evolved to the extent that new forms of medical practice, health communities and cultures of care transform how we interact with each other, with professionals and the world around us. The GSA Innovation School’s final year BDes Product Design students and faculty formed a dynamic community of practice with health, wellbeing and care practitioners and researchers from The University of Glasgow and beyond. This gave the students the opportunity to reflect on the underlying complexities of the future of health, well-being and care, technological acceleration, human agency and quality of life, to envision a 2031 blueprint as a series of six future world exhibits, and design the products, services and system experiences for the people and environments within it. In the first part of the project (Stage 1), Future worlds are groups of students working together on specific topics, to establish the context for their project and collaborate on research and development. In this iteration of Future Experiences, the "Health, Well-being and Care" worlds were clustered together around ‘People focused’ and ‘Environment focused’, but also joined up across these groups to create pairs of worlds, and in the process generate symbiosis between the groups. These worlds were then the starting points which the students explored in their individual projects. The second part of the project (Stage 2) saw individual students select an aspect of their Future World research to develop as a design direction, which they then prototyped and produced as products, services, and/or systems. These are designed for specific communities, contexts or scenarios of use defined by the students to communicate a future experience. These Future experiences reflect the societal contexts explored during the research phase, projected 10 years into the future, and communicated in a manner that makes the themes engaging and accessible. The deposited materials are arranged as follows: 1. Project Landscape Map - A report and blueprint for the project that gives a visual overview of the structure and timeline of the project. 2. Stage one data folders - the data folders for stage one of the project are named after the themes the groups explored to create their Future Worlds. 3. Stage two data folders - the data folders for stage two of the project are named after the individual students who created the project

COVID-19 vaccination, risk-compensatory behaviours, and contacts in the UK

The physiological effects of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) are well documented, yet the behavioural effects not well known. Risk compensation suggests that gains in personal safety, as a result of vaccination, are offset by increases in risky behaviour, such as socialising, commuting and working outside the home. This is potentially important because transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by contacts, which could be amplified by vaccine-related risk compensation. Here, we show that behaviours were overall unrelated to personal vaccination, but—adjusting for variation in mitigation policies—were responsive to the level of vaccination in the wider population: individuals in the UK were risk compensating when rates of vaccination were rising. This effect was observed across four nations of the UK, each of which varied policies autonomously

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during multiple Omicron variant waves in the UK general population

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections increased substantially after Omicron variants emerged. Large-scale community-based comparisons across multiple Omicron waves of reinfection characteristics, risk factors, and protection afforded by previous infection and vaccination, are limited. Here we studied ~45,000 reinfections from the UK’s national COVID-19 Infection Survey and quantified the risk of reinfection in multiple waves, including those driven by BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5, and BQ.1/CH.1.1/XBB.1.5 variants. Reinfections were associated with lower viral load and lower percentages of self-reporting symptoms compared with first infections. Across multiple Omicron waves, estimated protection against reinfection was significantly higher in those previously infected with more recent than earlier variants, even at the same time from previous infection. Estimated protection against Omicron reinfections decreased over time from the most recent infection if this was the previous or penultimate variant (generally within the preceding year). Those 14–180 days after receiving their most recent vaccination had a lower risk of reinfection than those >180 days from their most recent vaccination. Reinfection risk was independently higher in those aged 30–45 years, and with either low or high viral load in their most recent previous infection. Overall, the risk of Omicron reinfection is high, but with lower severity than first infections; both viral evolution and waning immunity are independently associated with reinfection

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in 45,965 adults from the general population of the United Kingdom

We report that in a cohort of 45,965 adults, who were receiving either the ChAdOx1 or the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, in those who had no prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, seroconversion rates and quantitative antibody levels after a single dose were lower in older individuals, especially in those aged >60 years. Two vaccine doses achieved high responses across all ages. Antibody levels increased more slowly and to lower levels with a single dose of ChAdOx1 compared with a single dose of BNT162b2, but waned following a single dose of BNT162b2 in older individuals. In descriptive latent class models, we identified four responder subgroups, including a ‘low responder’ group that more commonly consisted of people aged >75 years, males and individuals with long-term health conditions. Given our findings, we propose that available vaccines should be prioritized for those not previously infected and that second doses should be prioritized for individuals aged >60 years. Further data are needed to better understand the extent to which quantitative antibody responses are associated with vaccine-mediated protection

Antibody responses and correlates of protection in the general population after two doses of the ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccines

Antibody responses are an important part of immunity after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. However, antibody trajectories and the associated duration of protection after a second vaccine dose remain unclear. In this study, we investigated anti-spike IgG antibody responses and correlates of protection after second doses of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United Kingdom general population. In 222,493 individuals, we found significant boosting of anti-spike IgG by the second doses of both vaccines in all ages and using different dosing intervals, including the 3-week interval for BNT162b2. After second vaccination, BNT162b2 generated higher peak levels than ChAdOX1. Older individuals and males had lower peak levels with BNT162b2 but not ChAdOx1, whereas declines were similar across ages and sexes with ChAdOX1 or BNT162b2. Prior infection significantly increased antibody peak level and half-life with both vaccines. Anti-spike IgG levels were associated with protection from infection after vaccination and, to an even greater degree, after prior infection. At least 67% protection against infection was estimated to last for 2–3 months after two ChAdOx1 doses, for 5–8 months after two BNT162b2 doses in those without prior infection and for 1–2 years for those unvaccinated after natural infection. A third booster dose might be needed, prioritized to ChAdOx1 recipients and those more clinically vulnerable

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/5 variant following booster vaccination or breakthrough infection in the UK

Following primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, whether boosters or breakthrough infections provide greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection is incompletely understood. Here we investigated SARS-CoV-2 antibody correlates of protection against new Omicron BA.4/5 (re-)infections and anti-spike IgG antibody trajectories after a third/booster vaccination or breakthrough infection following second vaccination in 154,149 adults ≥18 y from the United Kingdom general population. Higher antibody levels were associated with increased protection against Omicron BA.4/5 infection and breakthrough infections were associated with higher levels of protection at any given antibody level than boosters. Breakthrough infections generated similar antibody levels to boosters, and the subsequent antibody declines were slightly slower than after boosters. Together our findings show breakthrough infection provides longer-lasting protection against further infections than booster vaccinations. Our findings, considered alongside the risks of severe infection and long-term consequences of infection, have important implications for vaccine policy