Search

Background: Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRAS G12C . We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRAS G12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs., Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRAS G12C -mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRAS G12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRAS G12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting., Findings: Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%])., Interpretation: Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRAS G12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs., Funding: Amgen., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AJdL reports financial interests, institutional, research grant from BMS, MSD, Boehringer, AstraZeneca; non-financial interests, other from Merck Serono, Roche. MLJ reports financial interests, institutional, research grant from AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptimmune, Amgen, Apexigen, Arcus Biosciences, Array BioPharma, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Atreca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, BioAtla, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calithera Biosciences, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Dynavax, Lilly, EMD Serono, Erasca, Exelixis, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Harpoon, Helsinn Healthcare, Hengrui Therapeutics, Hutchison MediPharma, IDEAYA Biosciences, IGM Biosciences, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Lycera, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Merck, Merus, NeoImmune Tech, Neovia Oncology, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Nuvalent, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PMV Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Ribon Therapeutics, Rubius Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals/Birdie Biopharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Silicon Therapeutics, Stem CentRx, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tarveda Therapeutics, TCR2 Therapeutics, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, Tmunity Therapeutics, Turning Point Therapeutics, University of Michigan, Vyriad, WindMIL, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Black Diamond, Carisma Therapeutics, Elicio Therapeutics, EQRx, Immunitas Therapeutics, Kartos Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Palleon Pharmaceuticals, Rain Therapeutics; financial interests, institutional, consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Axelia Oncology, Black Diamond, Calithera Biosciences, Checkpoint Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, EcoR1, Editas Medicine, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, IDEAYA Biosciences, iTeos Therapeutics, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Molecular Axiom, Novartis, Oncorus, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi-Aventis, Turning Point Therapeutics, VBL Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Arrivant, Pyramid Biosciences, Revolution Medicines, Seagen. JM reports financial interests, personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer; financial interests, institutional, research grant from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pierre Fabre; advisory board for Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Hengrui Therapeutics, Daiichi, Boehringer, Pierre Fabre, Amgen. A MCD reports other, institutional, advisory board for Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Sanofi; other, institutional, invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda; financial interests, institutional, research grant from Amgen; financial interests, institutional, principal investigator, local PI for Amgen, Daiichi, JNJ, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics; financial interests, institutional, principal investigator, coordinating PI for Roche; financial interests, institutional, other, steering committee member for Roche. GM reports financial interests, personal, other, consulting fees from Roche Hellas, Novartis Greece, BMS Greece, MSD Greece, AstraZeneca Greece, Takeda Hellas, Janssen Greece, GSK Greece, Amgen Hellas, Sanofi Greece, Boehringer Greece; financial interests, personal, other, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche Hellas, Novartis Greece, BMS Greece, MSD Greece, AstraZeneca Greece, Takeda Hellas, Pierre Fabre Greece, Janssen Greece, GSK Greece, Amgen Hellas, Sanofi Greece, Boehringer Greece; financial interests, personal, other, payment for expert testimony from Roche Hellas, Novartis Greece, BMS Greece, MSD Greece, AstraZeneca Greece, Takeda Hellas, Pierre Fabre Greece, Janssen Greece, GSK Greece, Amgen Hellas, Sanofi Greece, Boehringer Greece; financial interests, personal, other, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche Hellas, Novartis Greece, BMS Greece, MSD Greece, AstraZeneca Greece, Takeda Hellas, Pierre Fabre Greece, Janssen Greece, GSK Greece, Amgen Hellas, Sanofi Greece, Boehringer Greece; financial interests, personal, other, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche Hellas, Novartis Greece, BMS Greece, MSD Greece, AstraZeneca Greece, Takeda Hellas, Janssen Greece, GSK Greece, Amgen Hellas, Sanofi Greece, Boehringer Greece; financial interests, personal, other, leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, unpaid for European Society for Medical Oncology working groups (Educational Publication Working Group, Adolescents and Young Adults working group); financial interests, institutional, principal investigator for Roche Hellas, Novartis Greece, BMS Greece, MSD Greece, AstraZeneca Greece, Gilead Greece, GSK Greece, Amgen Hellas, Sanofi Greece. MP reports financial interests, personal, advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisei, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Merck, Sanofi, Bayer, Amgen; financial interests, personal, other, travel grant from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Vifor; financial interests, personal, speaker fees from Janssen, Nestle. JW reports financial interests, personal, advisory board, lectures fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Turning Point, Nuvalent; financial interests, institutional, research grant from BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer. MS reports financial interests, institutional, research grant from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb; financial interests, personal, consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda; financial interests, personal, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis; financial interests, personal, support for attending meetings and/or travel from BIOCAD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis; financial interests, personal, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Serono. HL reports financial interests, other, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, Roche, BMS, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim. FS reports financial interests, personal, other, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, BeiGene Guardant Health, BerGenBio, Navire Pharma, Tango Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences; financial interests, personal, other, lecture fees from European Society for Medical Oncology, Japanese Lung Cancer Society, Medscape, Intellisphere, VSPO McGill Universite de Montreal, RV Mais Promoção Eventos Ltda, MJH Life Sciences, IDEOlogy Health, MI&T, PER, LLC, CURIO; financial interests, personal, other, fees for travel, food and beverage from Dava Oncology, Tango Therapeutics, American Association for Cancer Research, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), MJH Life Sciences, IDEOlogy Health, MI&T, PER, LLC, CURIO; financial interests, personal, stocks/shares, stock or stock options for BioNTech SE, Moderna (completed 2020); financial interests, institutional, research grant from Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck & Co; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, BeiGene, Guardant Health, BerGenBio; Calithera Biosciences. YY reports no relationships to disclose. S-WK reports no relationships to disclose. HL reports financial interests, personal, other, consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GSK, Merck, Amgen, Boehringer, Pfizer, Lilly; financial interests, personal, other, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, AbbVie, GSK, Amgen, Boehringer, Pfizer, Lilly; financial interests, personal, other, payment for expert testimony from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GSK, Amgen, Boehringer, Pfizer, Lilly; financial interests, personal, other, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Amgen, Boehringer, Pfizer; financial interests, personal, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GSK, Amgen, Boehringer, Pfizer, Lilly; other, personal, leadership role, W4O Core Committee – Unpaid for European Society for Medical Oncology; other, personal, leadership role, President of the Scientific Committee and Member of the Board of Directors – Unpaid for Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group; other, personal, leadership role, member of board of directors – unpaid for Hellenic Foundation for Cancer Research, FairLife LCC; Other, personal, leadership role, legal representative member of board of directors - unpaid for W4O-Hellas; financial interests, personal and institutional, principal investigator, pi in sponsored clinical trials, personal and institutional fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amgen, PPD, Parexel ILR, Qualitis, Health Data Specialist. SN reports financial interests, personal, advisor/speaker bureau for AstraZeneca, BI, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Novartis; financial interests, personal, speaker bureau for BeiGene. AJvdW reports financial interests, institutional, research grant from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; financial interests, fees to institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, Amgen, Merck. YC reports other, personal, speaker faculty for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Guardant Health, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda; other, personal, advisory board for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mirati Therapeutics; financial interests, institutional, principal investigator, local PI for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD/Serono, Helsinn, Ipsen, Merck. SP reports financial interests, institutional, support for study conduct and medical writing from AstraZeneca; financial interests, institutional, principal investigator, coordinating PI for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche/Genentech. Financial interests, institutional, consulting fees from AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, Medtoday, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, PeerView, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody; financial interests, institution, other, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AiCME, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, PeerView, PER, Pfizer, Prime, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Takeda; financial interests, institutional, other, support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda; financial interests, institutional, other, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, Medtoday, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, PeerView, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody. EF reports financial interests, institutional, research grant from Merck Healthcare KGaA (grant for oncology innovation), Fundación Merck Salud; financial interests, institutional, consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, BerGenBio; financial interests, institutional, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Touch Oncology; other financial/non-financial interests, board member for Grífols. BJS reports financial interests, institutional, funding, institutional funding for conduct of clinical trial from Amgen; financial interests, personal, advisory board/honoraria from Amgen, Roche-Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Janssen. SSR reports financial interests, personal, research grant from Amgen, AstraZeneca; financial interests, personal, advisory board for AstraZeneca, Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab. CD reports no relationships to disclose. CL reports financial interests, personal, advisory board from Amgen; financial interests, personal, educational presentation/workshop from Amgen; financial interests, institutional, advisory board for CBPartners; non-financial interests, institutional, principal investigator, coordinating PI for Amgen, BI, Mirati Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Roche; non-financial interests, institutional, principal investigator, local PI Apollomics. CGF reports financial interests, other, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen; advisory board for IASCL; financial interests, personal, stocks/shares, stock or stock options in Oncoclínicas - Brazil. NB reports financial interests, other, consulting fees/honoraria from Amgen. CCO, YW, BM, TV, GN, BS report financial interests, personal, current or former full-time employment, employee and stockholder/shareholder in Amgen. DW reports financial interests, personal, invited speaker, advisory event, travel for BMS; financial interests, personal, invited speaker, advisory event for AstraZeneca, Janssen, EMD Serono; financial interests, personal, invited speaker, advisory event, consultant for Amgen, Merck; financial interest, personal, advisory event, consultant for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Fresenius Kbi; financial interests, personal, advisory event for Pfizer, Mirati Therapeutics, Regeneron/Sanofi; financial interests, personal, advisory event for Exelixis, Eisai, Pfizer, Mirati Therapeutics, Regeneron/Sanofi, Lilly, Sanofi, Astellas, Gilead. LPA reports financial interests, research grant from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS; financial interests, consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati Therapeutics, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo; financial interests, payment/honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The rate of events such as recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death are known to dramatically increase directly after HF hospitalization. Furthermore, the number of HF hospitalizations is associated with irreversible long-term disease progression, which is in turn associated with increased event rates. However, cost-effectiveness models of HF treatments commonly fail to capture both the short- and long-term association between HF hospitalization and events., Objective: The aim of this study was to provide a decision-analytic model that reflects the short- and long-term association between HF hospitalization and event rates. Furthermore, we assess the impact of omitting these associations., Methods: We developed a life-time Markov cohort model to evaluate HF treatments, and modeled the short-term impact of HF hospitalization on event rates via a sequence of tunnel states, with transition probabilities following a parametric survival curve. The corresponding long-term impact was modeled via hazard ratios per HF hospitalization. We obtained baseline event rates and utilities from published literature. Subsequently, we assessed, for a hypothetical HF treatment, how omitting the modeled associations (through a simple two-state model) affects incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: We developed a model that incorporates both short- and long-term impacts of HF hospitalizations. Based on an assumed treatment effect of a 20% risk reduction for HF hospitalization (and associated reductions in all-cause mortality of 15%), omitting the short-term, the long-term, or both associations resulted in a 5%, 1%, and 22% decrease in QALYs gained, respectively., Conclusion: For both modeling components, i.e., the short- and long-term implications of HF hospitalization, the impact on incremental outcomes associated with treatment was substantial. Considering these aspects as proposed within this modeling approach better reflects the natural course of this progressive condition and will enhance the evaluation of future HF treatments., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab followed by alendronate versus oral bisphosphonates alone in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk for fracture in Canada. Results showed that romosozumab sequenced to alendronate is a cost-effective treatment option, dominating both alendronate and risedronate alone., Purpose: To demonstrate the value of romosozumab sequenced to alendronate compared to alendronate or risedronate alone, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with a history of osteoporotic fracture and who are at very high risk for future fracture in Canada., Methods: A Markov model followed a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women at very high risk for future fractures, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab and alendronate compared to oral bisphosphonates alone. A total treatment period of 5 years was assumed. Quality-adjusted life years and costs were estimated for each comparator across health states defined by different types of fragility fractures., Results: Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with a lifetime gain of 0.103 and 0.127 QALYs and a cost reduction of $343 and $3805, relative to alendronate and risedronate, respectively. These results were driven by a reduction of the number of fractures (2561 per 1000 patients, versus 2700 for alendronate and 2724 for risedronate over lifetime). Romosozumab/alendronate had the highest probability of being cost-effective, relative to alendronate and risedronate, at any willingness to pay threshold value., Conclusion: Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with reduced costs and greater benefit relative to other comparators. Probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses indicate that romosozumab/alendronate represents the best value for money; the uncertainty analyses are robust, and therefore romosozumab should be considered for reimbursement by public drug plans in Canada ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of continued denosumab treatment, compared with discontinuation of denosumab after one dose, for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan, using real-world fracture reduction effectiveness and cost data. Outcomes indicate that continued denosumab treatment produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD $16,743 per QALY., Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continued denosumab use versus discontinuation after one dose, for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan, using real-world fracture reduction effectiveness and cost data., Methods: A Markov cohort model was used to evaluate the lifetime costs and QALYs associated with continued denosumab treatment versus discontinuation of treatment after one dose. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of Taiwan's healthcare system and used a discount rate of 3% per annum. The patient population consisted of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis with a mean age of 77 years who initiated denosumab treatment. Fracture reduction effectiveness data, baseline fracture rates, mortality data, and costs of fracture were informed by Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database., Results: Model outcomes showed that continued treatment with denosumab produced an expected gain of 0.042 QALYs and an incremental cost of USD $704, compared with discontinuation of denosumab after one dose. This corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD $16,743 per QALY gained. Probabilistic and scenario analysis showed that results are stable to variations in model assumptions and parameters., Conclusion: In a real-world setting, at a cost per QALY threshold equivalent to gross domestic product per capita in 2020 in Taiwan (USD $30,038), continued treatment with denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis is cost-effective compared with treatment discontinuation., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The 'German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer' (GC-HBOC) offers women with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer genetic counseling. The aim of this modeling study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by different preventive interventions (intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, or both mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy) compared to no genetic test., Methods: A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of 35-year-old women with a BRCA 1/2 mutation probability of ≥ 10%. The perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) was adopted. The model included the health states 'well' (women with increased risk), 'breast cancer without metastases', 'breast cancer with metastases', 'ovarian cancer', 'death', and two post (non-metastatic) breast or ovarian cancer states. Outcomes were costs, quality of life years gained (QALYs) and life years gained (LYG). Important data used for the model were obtained from 4380 women enrolled in the GC-HBOC., Results: Compared with the no test strategy, genetic testing with subsequent surgical and non-surgical treatment options provided to women with deleterious BRCA 1 or 2 mutations resulted in additional costs of €7256 and additional QALYs of 0,43 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,027 per QALY; cost per LYG: €22,318). The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: The provision of genetic testing to high-risk women with a BRCA1 and two mutation probability of ≥ 10% based on the individual family cancer history appears to be a cost-effective option for the SHI.

Introduction: Successful breast conserving cancer surgeries come along with tumor free resection margins and account for cosmetic outcome. Positive margins increase the likelihood of tumor recurrence. Intra-operative fluorescence molecular imaging (IFMI) aims to focus surgery on malignant tissue thus substantially lowering the presence of positive margins as compared with standard techniques of breast conservation (ST). A goal of this paper is to assess the incremental number of surgeries and costs of IFMI vs. ST., Methods: We developed a decision analytical model and applied it for an early evaluation approach. Given uncertainty we considered that IFMI might reduce the proportion of positive margins found by ST from all to none and this proportion is assumed to be reduced to 10% for the base case. Inputs included data from the literature and a range of effect estimates. For the costs of IFMI, respective cost components were added to those of ST., Results: The base case reduction lowered number of surgeries (mean [95% confidence interval]) by 0.22 [0.15; 0.30] and changed costs (mean [95% confidence interval]) by €-663 [€-1,584; €50]. A tornado diagram identified the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) costs, the proportion of positive margins of ST, the staff time saving factor and the duration of frozen section analysis (FSA) as important determinants of this cost., Conclusions: These early results indicate that IFMI may be more effective than ST and through the reduction of positive margins it is possible to save follow-up surgeries-indicating further health risk-and to save costs through this margin reduction and the avoidance of FSA., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Etelcalcetide is a novel intravenous calcimimetic for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in haemodialysis patients. The clinical efficacy and safety of etelcalcetide (in addition to phosphate binders and vitamin D and/or analogues [PB/VD]) was evaluated in three phase III studies, including two placebo-controlled trials and a head-to-head study versus the oral calcimimetic cinacalcet., Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a decision-analytic model for economic evaluation of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet., Methods: We developed a life-time Markov model including potential treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, and subjects' persistence. Long-term efficacy of etelcalcetide was extrapolated from the reduction in parathyroid hormone (PTH) in the phase III trials and the available data from the outcomes study in cinacalcet (EVOLVE trial). Etelcalcetide was compared with cinacalcet, both in addition to PB/VD. We applied unit costs averaged from five European countries and a range of potential etelcalcetide pricing options assuming parity price to weekly use of cinacalcet and varying it by a 15 or 30% increase., Results: Compared with cinacalcet, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of etelcalcetide was €1,355 per QALY, €24,521 per QALY, and €47,687 per QALY for the three prices explored. The results were robust across the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Our modelling approach enabled cost-utility assessment of the novel therapy for SHPT based on the observed and extrapolated data. This model can be used for local adaptations in the context of reimbursement assessment.

Background: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. This economic modeling study evaluated different preventive interventions for 30-year-old women with a confirmed BRCA (1 or 2) mutation., Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits [i.e., quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years gained (LYG)] associated with prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (BM), prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), BM plus BSO, BM plus BSO at age 40, and intensified surveillance. Relevant input data was obtained from a large German database including 5902 women with BRCA 1 or 2, and from the literature. The analysis was performed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. In order to assess the robustness of the results, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: With costs of €29,434 and a gain in QALYs of 17.7 (LYG 19.9), BM plus BSO at age 30 was less expensive and more effective than the other strategies, followed by BM plus BSO at age 40. Women who were offered the surveillance strategy had the highest costs at the lowest gain in QALYs/LYS. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of cost-saving was 57% for BM plus BSO. At a WTP of 10,000 € per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 80%., Conclusions: From the SHI perspective, undergoing BM plus immediate BSO should be recommended to BRCA 1 or 2 mutation carriers due to its favorable comparative cost-effectiveness.

Aims: This study explored the use of a value-based pricing approach for the new calcimimetic etelcalcetide indicated for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients receiving hemodialysis. It used the US payer perspective and applied the cost-effectiveness framework. Because etelcalcetide is an intravenous therapy that can be titrated for individual patients, and because its utilization is yet to be assessed in real world settings, a range of plausible doses were estimated for etelcalcetide to define a range of prices. These were either in relation to the existing oral calcimimetic cinacalcet or compared to no calcimimetic treatment., Materials and Methods: The value-based price of etelcalcetide was determined via a Markov model. This model combined data from the etelcalcetide trials and previously published cost-effectiveness models in SHPT, and allowed extrapolation of treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fracture, and parathyroidectomy. Several dosing scenarios were explored covering the dose ranges of 30.0-64.18 mg per day for cinacalcet and 1.07-3.11 mg per day for etelcalcetide. These included the mean dose from the etelcalcetide trials, the preliminary defined daily dose, and the expected most common dose in real world. An acceptable price range for etelcalcetide was assessed by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained with the willingness-to-pay threshold range of $100,000-$300,000/quality-adjusted life-years., Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis supported value-based prices for etelcalcetide ranging from $21.15-$49.97/mg vs cinacalcet, and $13.79-$119.45/mg vs no calcimimetics., Limitations: There is uncertainty around what the real-world dosing will be for etelcalcetide. Another important nuance is that no studies have examined etelcalcetide effects on hard outcomes and, therefore, this modeling exercise relied on an extrapolation approach., Conclusions: This cost-effectiveness analysis, including scenarios to address uncertainties, allowed estimation of a value-based price range to aid reimbursement decisions in the US.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Phillips-checklist, a proposed framework for the quality assessment of modeling studies. Six raters evaluated nine modeling studies from three different medical specialties. Intra-class correlation (ICC) and corresponding variance components were estimated from these studies. Raters were asked to comment on their experience with the framework. While overall the mean inter-rater reliability showed no significant rater-effect (ICC = 0.69, p = 0.064), there was - presumably as a result of a lower study variability - a significant rater effect for clopidogrel only (p < 0.001). The framework allowed a more structured methodological assessment but several items remained unclear. Regarding the quality assessment of modeling studies with the proposed framework, the rater variability is similar or even higher than variability because of studies or residual effects. Several scoring items can and should be improved to ease interpretation.

Despite the increasing availability of routine data, no analysis method has yet been presented for cost-of-illness (COI) studies based on massive data. We aim, first, to present such a method and, second, to assess the relevance of the associated gain in numerical efficiency. We propose a prevalence-based, top-down regression approach consisting of five steps: aggregating the data; fitting a generalized additive model (GAM); predicting costs via the fitted GAM; comparing predicted costs between prevalent and non-prevalent subjects; and quantifying the stochastic uncertainty via error propagation. To demonstrate the method, it was applied to aggregated data in the context of chronic lung disease to German sickness funds data (from 1999), covering over 7.3 million insured. To assess the gain in numerical efficiency, the computational time of the innovative approach has been compared with corresponding GAMs applied to simulated individual-level data. Furthermore, the probability of model failure was modeled via logistic regression. Applying the innovative method was reasonably fast (19 min). In contrast, regarding patient-level data, computational time increased disproportionately by sample size. Furthermore, using patient-level data was accompanied by a substantial risk of model failure (about 80 % for 6 million subjects). The gain in computational efficiency of the innovative COI method seems to be of practical relevance. Furthermore, it may yield more precise cost estimates.

Background: The evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1*28 genotyping is ambiguous and does not allow drawing valid conclusions for Germany. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing irinotecan-based chemotherapy compared to no testing from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance., Material and Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model with a life time horizon was developed. No testing was compared to two genotype-dependent therapy strategies: 1) dose reduction by 25%; and 2) administration of a prophylactic G-CSF growth factor analog for homozygous and heterozygous patients. Probability, quality of life and cost parameters used in this study were based on published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainties., Results: Strategy 1 dominated all remaining strategies. Compared to no testing, it resulted in only marginal QALY increases (0.0002) but a cost reduction of €580 per patient. Strategy 2 resulted in the same health gains but increased costs by €10 773. In the probabilistic analysis, genotyping and dose reduction was the optimal strategy in approximately 100% of simulations at a threshold of €50 000 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that uncertainty for this strategy originated primarily from costs for irinotecan-based chemotherapy, from the prevalence of neutropenia among heterozygous patients, and from whether dose reduction is applied to both homozygotes and heterozygotes or only to the former., Conclusion: This model-based synthesis of the most recent evidence suggests that pharmacogenetic UGT1A1 testing prior to irinotecan-based chemotherapy dominates non-personalized colon cancer care in Germany. However, as structural uncertainty remains high, these results require validation in clinical practice, e.g. based on a managed-entry agreement.

Background: Lung cancer is among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors can increase progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EGFR mutation analysis and first-line therapy with erlotinib for mutation-positive patients compared with non-individualized standard chemotherapy from the perspective of German statutory health insurance., Methods: A state transition model was developed for a time horizon of 10 years (reference year 2014). Data sources were published data from the European Tarceva versus Chemotherapy (EURTAC) randomized trial for drug efficacy and safety and German cost data. We additionally performed deterministic, probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses., Results: The individualized strategy incurred 0.013 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of € 200, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 15,577/QALY. Results were most sensitive to uncertainty in survival curves and changes in utility values. Cross-validating health utility estimates with recent German data increased the ICER to about € 58,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the individualized strategy is cost-effective, with a probability exceeding 50 % for a range of possible willingness-to-pay thresholds., Limitations: The uncertainty of the predicted survival curves is substantial, particularly for overall survival, which was not a primary endpoint in the EURTAC study. Also, there is limited data on quality of life in metastatic lung cancer patients., Conclusions: Individualized therapy based on EGFR mutation status has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to non-individualized care for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results.

Purpose: Lynch syndrome (LS) screening among patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer can decrease mortality in their affected first-degree relatives. In Germany, it is not yet clinical practice and the cost-effectiveness of different testing strategies is unknown., Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of LS screening from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance system. A total of 22 testing strategies considering family-history assessment, analysis of tumor samples (i.e., immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability, and BRAF mutation testing) and genetic sequencing were analyzed. Life-years gained in relatives by closed-meshed colonoscopy and aspirin prophylaxis were estimated by Markov models. Uncertainty was assessed deterministically and probabilistically., Results: On average, detected mutation carriers gained 0.52 life-years (undiscounted: 1.34) by increased prevention. Most strategies were dominated, with three exceptions: family assessment by the Bethesda criteria followed by IHC and BRAF testing and genetic sequencing; IHC and BRAF testing and genetic sequencing; and direct sequencing of all index patients. Their incremental cost-effectiveness was [euro ]77,268, [euro ]253,258, and [euro ]4,188,036 per life-year gained, respectively., Conclusion: The results were less favorable than those of previous models. Chemoprevention appears to provide comparably low additional benefit and improves cost-effectiveness only slightly.

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death and important driver of health care costs. Recent German health care reforms have promoted integrated care contracts allowing statutory health insurance providers more room to organize health care provision. One provider offers KardioPro, an integrated primary care-based CHD prevention program. As insurance providers should be aware of the financial consequences when developing optional programs, this study aims to analyze the costs associated with KardioPro participation. 13,264 KardioPro participants were compared with a propensity score-matched control group. Post-enrollment health care costs were calculated based on routine data over a follow-up period of up to 4 years. For those people who incurred costs, KardioPro participation was significantly associated with increased physician costs (by 33%), reduced hospital costs (by 19%), and reduced pharmaceutical costs (by 16%). Overall costs were increased by 4%, but this was not significant. Total excess costs per observation year were €131 per person (95% confidence interval: [€-36.5; €296]). Overall, KardioPro likely affected treatment as the program increased costs of physician services and reduced costs of hospital services. Further effects of substituting potential inpatient care with increased outpatient care might become fully apparent only over a longer time horizon., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fractures are one of the most costly consequences of falls in elderly patients in nursing homes., Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a 'multifactorial fracture prevention program' provided by a multidisciplinary team with 'no prevention' in newly admitted nursing home residents., Methods: We performed a cost-utility analysis using a Markov-based simulation model to establish the effectiveness of a multifaceted fall prevention program from the perspective of statutory health insurance (SHI) and long-term care insurance (LCI). The rate of falls was used to estimate the clinical and economic consequences resulting from hip and upper limb fractures. Robustness of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: Compared to no prevention a multifactorial prevention program for nursing home residents resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of 21,353 euro per quality-adjusted life-year. The total costs for SHI/LCI would result in 1.7 euro million per year. Results proved to be robust following deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: Multifactorial fracture prevention appears to be cost-effective in preventing fractures in nursing home residents. Since the results were based on the number of falls further research is required to confirm the results.

The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) developed-in a consultation process with an international expert panel-the efficiency frontier (EF) approach to satisfy a range of legal requirements for economic evaluation in Germany's statutory health insurance system. The EF approach is distinctly different from other health economic approaches. Here, we evaluate established tools for assessing and communicating parameter uncertainty in terms of their applicability to the EF approach. Among these are tools that perform the following: (i) graphically display overall uncertainty within the IQWiG EF (scatter plots, confidence bands, and contour plots) and (ii) communicate the uncertainty around the reimbursable price. We found that, within the EF approach, most established plots were not always easy to interpret. Hence, we propose the use of price reimbursement acceptability curves-a modification of the well-known cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Furthermore, it emerges that the net monetary benefit allows an intuitive interpretation of parameter uncertainty within the EF approach. This research closes a gap for handling uncertainty in the economic evaluation approach of the IQWiG methods when using the EF. However, the precise consequences of uncertainty when determining prices are yet to be defined., (© 2014 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Home-based secondary prevention programs led by nurses have been proposed to facilitate patients' adjustment to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The objective of this study was to conduct secondary analyses of the three-year follow-up of a nurse-based case management for elderly patients discharged from hospital after an AMI., Methods: In a single-centre randomized two-armed parallel group trial of hospitalized patients with AMI ≥65 years, patients hospitalized between September 2008 and May 2010 in the Hospital of Augsburg, Germany, were randomly assigned to case management or usual care. The case-management intervention consisted of a nurse-based follow-up for three years including home visits and telephone calls. Study endpoints were time to first unplanned readmission or death, clinical parameters, functional status, depressive symptoms and malnutrition risk. Persons who assessed three-year outcomes and validated readmission data were blinded. The intention-to-treat approach was applied to the statistical analyses which included Cox Proportional Hazards models., Results: Three hundred forty patients were allocated to receive case-management (n = 168) or usual care (n = 172). During three years, in the intervention group there were 80 first unplanned readmissions and 6 deaths, while the control group had 111first unplanned readmissions and 3 deaths. The intervention did not significantly affect time to first unplanned readmission or death (Hazard Ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.19; p = 0.439), blood pressure, cholesterol level, instrumental activities of daily life (IADL) (only for men), and depressive symptoms. However, patients in the intervention group had a significantly better functional status, as assessed by the HAQ Disability Index, IADL (only for women), and hand grip strength, and better SCREEN-II malnutrition risk scores than patients in the control group., Conclusions: A nurse-based management among elderly patients with AMI did not significantly affect time to unplanned readmissions or death during a three-year follow-up. However, the results indicate that functional status and malnutrition risk can be improved., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02893746.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the novel fixed-dose anticoagulant rivaroxaban compared with the current standard of care, warfarin, for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: A Markov model was constructed to model the costs and health outcomes of both treatments, potential adverse events, and resulting health states over 35 years. Analyses were based on a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk of stroke. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over the lifetime, and was assessed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. Costs and utility data were drawn from public data and the literature, while event probabilities were derived from both the literature and rivaroxaban's pivotal ROCKET AF trial., Results: Stroke prophylaxis with rivaroxaban offers health improvements over warfarin treatment at additional cost. From the SHI perspective, at baseline the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of rivaroxaban was 15,207 per QALY gained in 2014. The results were robust to changes in the majority of variables; however, they were sensitive to the price of rivaroxaban, the hazard ratios for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, the time horizon, and the discount rate., Conclusions: Our results showed that the substantially higher medication costs of rivaroxaban were offset by mitigating the shortcomings of warfarin, most notably frequent dose regulation and bleeding risk. Future health economic studies on novel oral anticoagulants should evaluate the cost effectiveness for secondary stroke prevention and, as clinical data from direct head-to-head comparisons become available, new anticoagulation therapies should be compared against each other.

Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. To reduce this burden of disease, a German sickness fund ('Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse', SBK) initiated the prevention programme 'KardioPro' including primary (risk factor reduction) and secondary (screening) prevention and guideline-based treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of 'KardioPro' as it is implemented in the real world., Methods: The study is based on sickness fund routine data. The control group was selected from non-participants via propensity score matching. Study analysis was based on time-to-event analysis via Cox proportional hazards regression with the endpoint 'all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic stroke (1)', 'all-cause mortality (2)' and 'non-fatal acute MI and ischemic stroke (3)'., Results: A total of 26,202 insurants were included, 13,101 participants and 13,101 control subjects. 'KardioPro' enrollment was associated with risk reductions of 23.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0-32.7%) (1), 41.7% (95% CI 30.2-51.2%) (2) and 3.5% (hazard ratio 0.965, 95% CI 0.811-1.148) (3). This corresponds to an absolute risk reduction of 0.29% (1), 0.31% (2) and 0.03% (3) per year., Conclusion: The prevention programme initiated by a German statutory sickness fund appears to be effective with regard to all-cause mortality. The non-significant reduction in non-fatal events might result from a shift from fatal to non-fatal events.

Background: Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide, making their prevention a major health care challenge. In 2006, a German statutory health insurance company presented a novel individualised prevention programme (KardioPro), which focused on coronary heart disease (CHD) screening, risk factor assessment, early detection and secondary prevention. This study evaluates KardioPro in CHD risk subgroups, and analyses the cost-effectiveness of different individualised prevention strategies., Methods: The CHD risk subgroups were assembled based on routine data from the statutory health insurance company, making use of a quasi-beta regression model for risk prediction. The control group was selected via propensity score matching based on logistic regression and an approximate nearest neighbour approach. The main outcome was cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured as event-free time, and events were defined as myocardial infarction, stroke and death. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing participants with non-participants were calculated for each subgroup. To assess the uncertainty of results, a bootstrapping approach was applied., Results: The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro in the group at high risk of CHD was € 20,901 per event-free year; in the medium-risk group, € 52,323 per event-free year; in the low-risk group, € 186,074 per event-free year; and in the group with known CHD, € 26,456 per event-free year. KardioPro was associated with a significant health gain but also a significant cost increase. However, statistical significance could not be shown for all subgroups., Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro differs substantially according to the group being targeted. Depending on the willingness-to-pay, it may be reasonable to only offer KardioPro to patients at high risk of further cardiovascular events. This high-risk group could be identified from routine statutory health insurance data. However, the long-term consequences of KardioPro still need to be evaluated.

Background: There is an on-going debate about whether to perform surgery on early stage localised prostate cancer and risk the common long term side effects such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Alternatively these patients could be closely monitored and treated only in case of disease progression (active surveillance). The aim of this paper is to develop a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-utility of active surveillance (AS) and radical prostatectomy (PE) for a cohort of 65 year old men with newly diagnosed low risk prostate cancer., Methods: A Markov model comparing PE and AS over a lifetime horizon was programmed in TreeAge from a German societal perspective. Comparative disease specific mortality was obtained from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group trial. Direct costs were identified via national treatment guidelines and expert interviews covering in-patient, out-patient, medication, aids and remedies as well as out of pocket payments. Utility values were used as factor weights for age specific quality of life values of the German population. Uncertainty was assessed deterministically and probabilistically., Results: With quality adjustment, AS was the dominant strategy compared with initial treatment. In the base case, it was associated with an additional 0.04 quality adjusted life years (7.60 QALYs vs. 7.56 QALYs) and a cost reduction of €6,883 per patient (2011 prices). Considering only life-years gained, PE was more effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €96,420/life year gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of developing metastases under AS and utility weights under AS are a major sources of uncertainty. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that AS was more likely to be cost-effective even under very high willingness to pay thresholds., Conclusion: AS is likely to be a cost-saving treatment strategy for some patients with early stage localised prostate cancer. However, cost-effectiveness is dependent on patients' valuation of health states. Better predictability of tumour progression and modified reimbursement practice would support widespread use of AS in the context of the German health care system. More research is necessary in order to reliably quantify the health benefits compared with initial treatment and account for patient preferences.

Background: Thrombosis inhibitors can be used to treat acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, there are various alternative treatment strategies, of which some have been compared using health economic decision models., Objective: To assess the quality of health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and to identify areas for quality improvement., Data Sources: The literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA)., Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: A review of the quality of health economic decision models was conducted by two independent reviewers, using the Philips checklist., Results: Twenty-one relevant studies were identified. Differences were apparent regarding the model type (six decision trees, four Markov models, eight combinations, three undefined models), the model structure (types of events, Markov states) and the incorporation of data (efficacy, cost and utility data). Critical issues were the absence of particular events (e.g. thrombocytopenia, stroke) and questionable usage of utility values within some studies., Limitations: As we restricted our search to health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors, interesting aspects related to the quality of studies of adjacent medical areas that compared stents or procedures could have been missed., Conclusions: This review identified areas where recommendations are indicated regarding the quality of future ACS decision models. For example, all critical events and relevant treatment options should be included. Models also need to allow for changing event probabilities to correctly reflect ACS and to incorporate appropriate, age-specific utility values and decrements when conducting cost-utility analyses.

Chronic illnesses, for which many patients are admitted to hospitals, substantially increase the risk of falling, and hence the likelihood of incurring a hip fracture. Hip fractures not only have devastating consequences on an individual's quality of life but may also affect a hospital's reputation in the community. In addition, hospitals may face litigation claims and increased costs for patients who fall and suffer a major injury as a consequence. External hip protectors are comparable to padded undergarments and shield the trochanter, reducing the detrimental effects and force impacting the bone during a fall. Screening for patients at high risk of falling and providing high-risk patients with hip protectors as a preventive measure to avoid hip fractures, not only improves public health, but can also save hospitals care and litigation costs.

Background: Positive screening results are often associated not only with target-disease-specific but also with non-target-disease-specific mortality. In general, this association is due to joint risk factors. Cost-effectiveness estimates based on decision-analytic models may be biased if this association is not reflected appropriately., Objective: To develop a procedure for quantifying the degree of bias when an increase in non-target-disease-specific mortality is not considered., Methods: We developed a family of parametric functions that generate hazard ratios (HRs) of non-target-disease-specific mortality between subjects screened positive and negative, with the HR of target-disease-specific mortality serving as the input variable. To demonstrate the efficacy of this procedure, we fitted a function within the context of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk screening, based on HRs related to different risk factors extracted from published studies. Estimates were embedded into a decision-analytic model, and the impact of 'modelling increased non-target-disease-specific mortality' was assessed., Results: In 55-year-old German men, based on a risk screening with 5% positively screened subjects, and a CAD risk ratio of 6 within the first year after screening, incremental quality-adjusted life-years were 19% higher and incremental costs were 8% lower if no adjustment was made. The effect varied depending on age, gender, the explanatory power of the screening test and other factors., Conclusion: Some bias can occur when an increase in non-target-disease-specific mortality is not considered when modelling the outcomes of screening tests.

Background: To achieve fair-coverage decision making, both material criteria and criteria of procedural justice have been proposed. The relationship between these is still unclear., Objective: To analyze hypotheses underlying the assumption that more assessment, transparency, and participation have a positive impact on the reasonableness of coverage decisions., Methods: We developed a structural equation model in which the process components were considered latent constructs and operationalized by a set of observable indicators. The dependent variable "reasonableness" was defined by the relevance of clinical, economic, and other ethical criteria in technology appraisal (as opposed to appraisal based on stakeholder lobbying). We conducted an Internet survey among conference participants familiar with coverage decisions of third-party payers in industrialized countries between 2006 and 2011. Partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) was used, which allows analyzing small sample sizes without distributional assumptions. Data on 97 coverage decisions from 15 countries and 40 experts were used for model estimation., Results: Stakeholder participation (regression coefficient [RC] =0.289; P = 0.005) and scientific rigor of assessment (RC = 0.485; P < 0.001) had a significant influence on the construct of reasonableness. The path from transparency to reasonableness was not significant (RC = 0.289; P = 0.358). For the reasonableness construct, a considerable share of the variance was explained (R (2) = 0.44). Biases from missing data and nesting effects were assessed through sensitivity analyses. Limitations. The results are limited by a small sample size and the overrepresentation of some decision makers., Conclusions: Rigorous assessment and intense stakeholder participation appeared effective in promoting reasonable decision making, whereas the influence of transparency was not significant. A sound evidence base seems most important as the degree of scientific rigor of assessment had the strongest effect.

Background: Transition from hospital to home is a critical period for older persons with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Home-based secondary prevention programs led by nurses have been proposed to facilitate the patients' adjustment to AMI after discharge. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a nurse-based case management for elderly patients discharged after an AMI from a tertiary care hospital., Methods: In a single-centre randomized two-armed parallel group trial of patients aged 65 years and older hospitalized with an AMI between September 2008 and May 2010 in the Hospital of Augsburg, Germany, patients were randomly assigned to a case management or a control group receiving usual care. The case-management intervention consisted of a nurse-based follow-up for one year including home visits and telephone calls. Key elements of the intervention were to detect problems or risks and to give advice regarding a wide range of aspects of disease management (e.g. nutrition, medication). Primary study endpoint was time to first unplanned readmission or death. Block randomization per telephone call to a biostatistical center, where the randomization list was kept, was performed. Persons who assessed one-year outcomes and validated readmission data were blinded. Statistical analysis was based on the intention-to-treat approach and included Cox Proportional Hazards models., Results: Three hundred forty patients were allocated to receive case-management (n=168) or usual care (n=172). The analysis is based on 329 patients (intervention group: n=161; control group: n=168). Of these, 62% were men, mean age was 75.4 years, and 47.1% had at least either diabetes or chronic heart failure as a major comorbidity. The mean follow-up time for the intervention group was 273.6 days, and for the control group it was 320.6 days. During one year, in the intervention group there were 57 first unplanned readmissions and 5 deaths, while the control group had 75 first unplanned readmissions and 3 deaths. With respect to the endpoint there was no significant effect of the case management program after one year (Hazard Ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.41). This was also the case among subgroups according to sex, diabetes, living alone, and comorbidities., Conclusions: A nurse-based management among elderly patients with AMI had no significant influence on the rate of first unplanned readmissions or death during a one-year follow-up. A possible long-term influence should be investigated by further studies., Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCTN02893746.

The aim of this study was to analyze influences of process- and technology-related characteristics on the outcomes of coverage decisions. Using survey data on 77 decisions from 13 countries, we examined whether outcomes differ by 14 variables that describe components of decision-making processes and the technology. We analyzed the likelihood of committees covering a technology, i.e. positive (including partial coverage) vs. negative coverage decisions. We performed non-parametric univariate tests and binomial logistic regression with a stepwise variable selection procedure. We identified a negative association between a positive decision and whether the technology is a prescribed medicine (p=0.0097). Other significant influences on a positive decision outcome included one disease area (p=0.0311) and whether a technology was judged to be (cost-)effective (p<0.0001). The first estimation of the logistic regression yielded a quasi-complete separation for technologies that were clearly judged (cost-)effective. In uncertain decisions, a higher number of stakeholders involved in voting (odds ratio=2.52; p=0.03) increased the likelihood of a positive outcome. The results suggest that decisions followed the lines of evidence-based decision-making. Despite claims for transparent and participative decision-making, the phase of evidence generation seemed most critical as decision-makers usually adopted the assessment recommendations. We identified little impact of process configurations., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been identified in recent decades. However, the association between the health system and the burden of CVD has not yet been sufficiently researched. The objective of this study was to analyse the association between health system development and the burden of CVD, in particular CVD-related disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)., Methods: Univariate and multivariate generalized linear mixed models were applied to country-level data collected by the World Bank and World Health Organization. Response variables were the age-standardized CVD mortality and age-standardized CVD DALY rates., Results: The amount of available health system resources, indicated by total health expenditures per capita, physician density, nurse density, dentistry density, pharmaceutical density and the density of hospital beds, was associated with reduced CVD DALY rates and CVD mortality. However, in the multivariate models, the density of nurses and midwives was positively associated with CVD. High out-of-pocket costs were associated with increased CVD mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses., Conclusion: A highly developed health system with a low level of out-of-pocket costs seems to be the most appropriate to reduce the burden of CVD. Furthermore, an efficient balance between human health resources and health technologies is essential.

Purpose: To analyse the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in German stroke survivors undergoing neurological rehabilitation., Methods: The EQ-5D, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) were completed before (210 subjects) and after (183 subjects) a patient education programme in seven rehabilitation clinics in Bavaria, Germany. A postal follow-up was conducted after 6 months. Acceptance, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D were tested. The SIS subscales were used as external anchors to classify the patients into change groups between the measurements., Results: The proportion of missing answers ranged from 4.7 to 8.6%. Between 16 and 19% reported no problems in any EQ-5D dimension. At baseline, correlations between EQ-5D index and the SIS subscales ranged from 0.15 (communication) to 0.60 (mobility). Correlations with the EQ VAS were slightly smaller. All scores were reliable in test-retest with intraclass correlations ranging from 0.67 to 0.81. EQ-5D index and EQ VAS were consistently responsive only to improvements in health, showing small- to medium effect sizes (0.27-0.42)., Conclusions: The EQ-5D has shown reasonable validity, reliability and, more limited, responsiveness in stroke patients with mild to moderate limitations of functional status, allowing it to be used in clinical trials in rehabilitation.

Background: Patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery (MOS), such as total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). For thromboembolism prophylaxis, the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has recently been included in the German diagnosis related group (DRG) system. However, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban is still unclear from both the German statutory health insurance (SHI) and the German hospital perspective., Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective and to analyse financial incentives from the German hospital perspective., Methods: Based on data from the RECORD trials and German cost data, a decision tree was built. The model was run for two settings (THR and TKR) and two perspectives (SHI and hospital) per setting., Results: Prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces VTE events (0.02 events per person treated after TKR; 0.007 after THR) compared with enoxaparin. From the SHI perspective, prophylaxis with rivaroxaban after TKR is cost saving (€27.3 saving per patient treated). However, the cost-effectiveness after THR (€17.8 cost per person) remains unclear because of stochastic uncertainty. From the hospital perspective, for given DRGs, the hospital profit will decrease through the use of rivaroxaban by €20.6 (TKR) and €31.8 (THR) per case respectively., Conclusions: Based on our findings, including rivaroxaban for reimbursement in the German DRG system seems reasonable. Yet, adequate incentives for German hospitals to use rivaroxaban are still lacking.

Background: Breast cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer among women in Germany. Despite its clinical and economic relevance, no attributable costs for breast cancer have been reported for Germany so far. The objective of this study is to estimate age-specific breast cancer attributable health expenditures for Germany., Methods: Sickness fund data from 1999 representing about 26 million insured (i.e. 32% of the total German population) have been analysed using generalized additive models and the error propagation law. Costs have been inflated to 2010., Results: Breast cancer attributable costs decreased with age. Among breast cancer patients aged 30-45 years, about 90% of all health expenditures were due to breast cancer, whereas in breast cancer patients aged 80-90 years, about 50% were due to breast cancer. Breast cancer attributable costs amounted to about €9,000 annually for patients below 55 years of age and declined to about €3,000 in 90-year-old breast cancer patients., Conclusion: This analysis provides estimates of attributable breast cancer costs in Germany. Compared with the international literature, the estimates were plausible but had a tendency to underestimate breast cancer attributable costs.

Background: There are no data on the association between acute inflammation during critical illness and long-term mortality in ICU patients., Methods: Nonsurgical patients with an ICU length of stay > 24 h surviving until ICU discharge were included into this prospective, observational, follow-up study. Demographics, chronic diseases, admission diagnosis, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, length of ICU stay, maximum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels during the ICU stay (CRPmax), and CRP levels at ICU discharge (CRPdis) were documented. After a follow-up time of 1.88 ± 1.16 years (range, 0.5-4 years), the survival status was determined., Results: Seven hundred sixty-five patients were enrolled into the study protocol. One hundred fifty-eight patients (20.7%) died within 0.62 ± 0.88 years after ICU discharge. Cumulative survival rates differed between patients grouped into the CRPmax and CRPdis quartiles. Patients in the first and second CRPmax quartiles had better cumulative survival rates than those in higher CRPmax quartiles (all P < .001). Patients in the first CRPdis quartile had better cumulative survival rates than those in higher CRPdis quartiles (all P < .001). Using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, both CRPmax and CRPdis were independently associated with post-ICU mortality (both P < .001). Furthermore, the number of chronic diseases (P < .001), age (P < .001), and the SAPS II (P = .03) were associated with post-ICU mortality in both Cox models., Conclusions: CRP levels during critical illness seem independently associated with post-ICU survival in nonsurgical ICU patients. Future research focusing on the association between acute systemic inflammation and post-ICU outcome is warranted in order to improve long-term survival of critically ill patients.

Objectives: This paper presents findings of a mandatory three-year evaluation of a prevention bonus scheme offered in the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). Its objective is to describe the rationale behind the programs, analyze their financial impact and discuss their implications on potentially conflicting goals on solidarity and competition., Methods: The analysis included 70,429 insured enrolled in a prevention bonus program in a cohort study. The intervention group and their matched controls were followed for a three-year period. Matching was performed as nearest neighbor matching. The economic analysis comprised all costs relevant for Sickness Funds (SF) in the SHI and was carried out from a SHI perspective. Differences in cost trends between the intervention and the control group were examined applying the paired t-test., Results: Regarding mean costs there was a significant difference between the two groups of euro177.48 (90% CI [euro149.73; euro205.24]) in favor of the intervention group. If program costs were considered cost reductions of euro100.88 (90% CI [euro73.12; euro128.63]) were obtained., Conclusions: The uptake of a prevention bonus program led to cost reductions in the intervention group compared to the control group even when program costs were considered. However, the results must be interpreted with caution as in addition to financial aspects, socio-economic and health-status, selection bias and the function and use of bonus programs as marketing tools, as well as their long-term sustainability should be considered in future assessments., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In decision modeling for health economic evaluation, bootstrapping and the Cholesky decomposition method are frequently used to assess parameter uncertainty and to support probabilistic sensitivity analysis. An alternative, Gauss's error propagation law, is rarely known but may be useful in some settings. Bootstrapping, the Cholesky decomposition method, and the error propagation law were compared regarding standard deviation estimates of a hypothetic parameter, which was derived from a regression model fitted to simulated data. Furthermore, to demonstrate its value, the error propagation law was applied to German administrative claims data. All 3 methods yielded almost identical estimates of the standard deviation of the target parameter. The error propagation law was much faster than the other 2 alternatives. Furthermore, it succeeded the claims data example, a case in which the established methods failed. In conclusion, the error propagation law is a useful extension of parameter uncertainty assessment.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)-screening in addition to traditional risk factor screening in apparently healthy persons as a means of preventing coronary artery disease., Methods and Results: The systematic review was performed according to internationally recognized methods. Seven studies on risk prediction, one clinical decision-analytic modeling study, and three decision-analytic cost-effectiveness studies were included. The adjusted relative risk of high hs-CRP-level ranged from 0.7 to 2.47 (p < .05 in four of seven studies). Adding hs-CRP to the prediction models increased the areas under the curve by 0.00 to 0.027. Based on the clinical decision analysis, both individuals with elevated hs-CRP-levels and those with hyperlipidemia have a similar gain in life expectancy following statin therapy. One high-quality economic modeling study suggests favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for persons with elevated hs-CRP and higher risk. However, many model parameters were based on limited evidence., Conclusions: Adding hs-CRP to traditional risk factors improves risk prediction, but the clinical relevance and cost-effectiveness of this improvement remain unclear.

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of death in industrial countries, leading to high health-related costs and decreased quality of life., Objective: To develop and validate a decision-analytic model for CAD risk screening in Germany (German Coronary Artery Disease Screening Model)., Design: Markov model., Target Population: Age- and gender-specific cohorts of the German population., Data Sources: Mortality rates posted by the German Federal Statistical Office, the German Health Survey, social health insurance institutions, the MONICA Augsburg study, and the literature., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Interventions: CAD risk screening for high-risk individuals using Framingham risk equation and use of statins as the primary preventive measure, compared with a setting without screening., Outcome Measures: Life-years (LY) gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained., Results: The model-based CAD incidence corresponds well with empirical data from the MONICA Augsburg study. Health outcomes depend on the screening threshold (cutoff value of Framingham 10-year risk) and on the age and gender of the cohort screened (0.03 to 0.26 LYs and 0.06 to 0.42 QALYs gained per person screened in cohorts of 50- and 60-year-old men and women, respectively)., Conclusions: The model provides a valid tool for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of CAD risk screening in Germany. Using statins as a primary prevention intervention for CAD in high-risk individuals identified by screening could improve the long-term health of the German population.

Background: In a substantial portion of patients (= 25%) with coronary heart disease (CHD), a myocardial infarction or sudden cardiac death without prior symptoms is the first manifestation of disease. The use of new risk predictors for CHD such as the high-sensitivity C-reactive Protein (hs-CRP) in addition to established risk factors could improve prediction of CHD. As a consequence of the altered risk assessment, modified preventive actions could reduce the number of cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction., Research Question: Does the additional information gained through the measurement of hs-CRP in asymptomatic patients lead to a clinically relevant improvement in risk prediction as compared to risk prediction based on traditional risk factors and is this cost-effective?, Methods: A literature search of the electronic databases of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI) was conducted. Selection, data extraction, assessment of the study-quality and synthesis of information was conducted according to the methods of evidence-based medicine., Results: Eight publications about predictive value, one publication on the clinical efficacy and three health-economic evaluations were included. In the seven study populations of the prediction studies, elevated CRP-levels were almost always associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events and non-fatal myocardial infarctions or cardiac death and severe cardiovascular events. The effect estimates (odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR)), once adjusted for traditional risk factors, demonstrated a moderate, independent association between hs-CRP and cardiac and cardiovascular events that fell in the range of 0.7 to 2.47. In six of the seven studies, a moderate increase in the area under the curve (AUC) could be detected by adding hs-CRP as a predictor to regression models in addition to established risk factors though in three cases this was not statistically significant. The difference [in the AUC] between the models with and without hs-CRP fell between 0.00 and 0.023 with a median of 0.003. A decision-analytic modeling study reported a gain in life-expectancy for those using statin therapy for populations with elevated hs-CRP levels and normal lipid levels as compared to statin therapy for those with elevated lipid levels (approximately 6.6 months gain in life-expectancy for 58 year olds). Two decision-analytic models (three publications) on cost-effectiveness reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between Euro 8,700 and 50,000 per life year gained for the German context and between 52,000 and 708,000 for the US context. The empirical input data for the model is highly uncertain., Conclusion: No sufficient evidence is available to support the notion that hs-CRP-values should be measured during the global risk assessment for CAD or cardiovascular disease in addition to the traditional risk factors. The additional measurement of the hs-CRP-level increases the incremental predictive value of the risk prediction. It has not yet been clarified whether this increase is clinically relevant resulting in reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. For people with medium cardiovascular risk (5 to 20% in ten years) additional measurement of hs-CRP seems most likely to be clinical relevant to support the decision as to whether or not additional statin therapy should be initiated for primary prevention. Statin therapy can reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events for asymptomatic individuals with normal lipid and elevated hs-CRP levels. However, this is not enough to provide evidence for a clinical benefit of hs-CRP-screening. The cost-effectiveness of general hs-CRP-screening as well as screening among only those with normal lipid levels remains unknown at present.

Objective: To compare the predictive value and the clinical effectiveness of additional high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) screening as opposed to traditional risk factor screening alone as a strategy of primary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods: Following a comprehensive search of 26 electronic databases by DAHTA DIMDI, a systematic review was performed in accordance with international standards of evidence based medicine. Eight publications on risk prediction and one study addressing clinical decision-analytic modelling were included in the assessment., Results: The adjusted relative risk of a high hs-CRP level (> 3 mg/L) for myocardial infarction, cardiac related death, and cardiovascular events ranged from 0.7 to 2.47 (p < 0.05 in 4 of 7 studies). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) increased by 0.00 to 0.027 when hs-CRP was added to the prediction models (4 of 7 studies statistically significant with p < 0.05). Based on a published decision-analytic model examining hs-CRP screening, the gain in life expectancy due to statin therapy in individuals with elevated hs-CRP was similar when compared to patients with hyperlipidaemia. Nonetheless, evidence on many model parameters was limited., Conclusion: Screening with hs-CRP in addition to traditional risk factors improves risk prediction. However, the incremental effect is moderate and the clinical relevance remains unclear.

Objectives: Progression-free survival (PFS) has not been validated as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) for anthracycline (A) and taxane-based (T) chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Using trial-level, meta-analytic approaches, we evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint., Methods: A literature review identified randomized, controlled A and T trials for ABC. Progression-based endpoints were classified by prospective definitions. Treatment effects were derived as hazard ratios for PFS (HRPFS) and OS (HROS). Kappa statistic assessed overall agreement. A fixed-effects regression model was used to predict HROS from observed HRPFS. Cross-validation was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed for PFS definition, year of last patient recruitment, line of treatment, and constant rate assumption., Results: Sixteen A and fifteen T trials met inclusion criteria, producing seventeen A (n = 4,323) and seventeen T (n = 5,893) trial-arm pairs. Agreement (kappa statistic) between the direction of HROS and HRPFS was 0.71 for A (p = .0029) and 0.75 for T (p = .0028). While HRPFS was a statistically significant predictor of HROS for both A (p = .0019) and T (p = .012), the explained variances were 0.49 (A) and 0.35 (T). In cross-validation, 97 percent of the 95 percent prediction intervals crossed the equivalence line, and the direction of predicted HROS agreed with observed HROS in 82 percent (A) and 76 percent (T). Results were robust in sensitivity and subgroup analyses., Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the trial-level treatment effect on PFS is significantly associated with the trial-level treatment effect on OS. However, prediction of OS based on PFS is surrounded with uncertainty.

Purpose: A recent study reported that a diet rich in bread and refined cereals might have an unfavorable role in the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). To test whether an underlying intolerance of bread ingredients is responsible for the unfavorable influence of bread on RCC, we examined patient sera for the presence of food-specific IgG., Experimental Design: A commercial test was used to detect food-specific IgG directed against a panel of 113 food antigens in sera of 54 patients with metastatic RCC. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for univariate survival analysis, and differences in survival curves were assessed with the log-rank test. Multivariate survival analysis was done using a Cox regression model., Results: We found that RCC patients with elevated serum levels of IgG antibodies against S. cerevisiae, commonly known as baker's yeast and yet another bread component, have an unfavorable clinical course. Median survival of patients with high levels of S. cerevisiae IgG was only 17.8 months, whereas median survival of patients with low S. cerevisiae IgG was 43.8 months (P = 0.0022; log-rank). Multivariate survival analysis identified high levels of S. cerevisiae IgG as a strong and independent prognostic risk factor (risk ratio 4.6, P = 0.001; 95% CI 1.61-13.08)., Conclusions: Our findings indicate that serum levels of IgG against S. cerevisiae may predict survival in patients with metastatic RCC. The data suggest not cereals but baker's yeast being the critical component of bread that may cause immune deviation and impaired immunosurveillance in predisposed RCC patients.

Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate gender-specific differences in prevalence, healthcare costs, and treatment patterns in the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI)., Methods: The study analyzed administrative claims data of over 26 million insured with respect to prevalence and cost of illness of six chronic diseases. Insured were identified using the ATC code for medication prescription and ICD-9 code for diagnosis. The influences of gender, age, and comorbidity on cost differences were analyzed via multivariate regression analysis., Results: Adjusted for age and comorbidity, gender had a significant influence on both hospital and medication spending. Hospital costs on average were 17.1% (95% CI 14.1; 20.2) higher for men compared with women. Medication spending for men exceeded that for women on average by 13.8% (95% CI 10.9; 16.7). The diagnoses with the highest prevalence were hypertension and heart failure. Women had a higher prevalence of diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, and hypertension. Medication costs were higher for men in three of five diagnoses and comparable for two diagnoses (diabetes and asthma). Women received more medication prescriptions than men, but on average prescriptions for men were 14%-26% more expensive than prescriptions for women. Regarding treatment patterns men were treated with different drug classes in cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with women. Total medication spending stratified by diagnosis was highest for diabetes., Conclusions: Gender differences for costs and prescribing patterns for chronic diseases vary disease specifically, but generally men had higher inpatient costs and more expensive medication prescriptions, whereas women had higher numbers of prescriptions.

Objectives: With the implementation of the Health Care Modernization Act in 2004 sickness funds in Germany were given the opportunity to award bonuses to their insured for health-promoting behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the financial implications of a prevention bonus program from a sickness fund perspective., Method: The investigation was designed as a controlled cohort study (matched pair study) comprising 70,429 members in each group. Matching criteria were sex, postal code, insurance status, and cost categories for health care utilization. Insured opted into the program on a voluntary basis. The program consisted of interventions featuring primary prevention, modest exercise and immunization. Differences in cost trends between the two groups were examined using the paired t-test., Results: A reduction in mean costs of 241.11 Euro per active member for the year 2005 (90% CI = 348.70, 133.52; p-value < 0.001) could be achieved in the intervention group compared to the control group. When costs for the implementation of the program and the bonus payments were taken into account, there was a saving of 97.14 Euro per active member for the year 2005., Conclusions: Preliminary results of a prevention bonus program in the German Statutory Health Insurance suggest a decrease in mean health care spending per enrollee. These effects may increase with time as long term effects of prevention become effective. However, further research is needed to understand how much of these short-term cost reductions can be attributed to the program itself rather than to possible confounders or volunteer bias and how the short-term savings may be accrued.