Search

Introduction: A national organized cytology-based cervical cancer screening program was launched in 2018 and rollout is ongoing. Concomitantly, the High Authority for Health (HAS) recently assessed new evidence on primary HPV testing to update screening recommendations., Methods: The HAS commissioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of primary HPV screening; accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples; effectiveness of self-sampling to reach underscreened women; and triage strategies to manage HPV-positive women. Recommendations developed by the HAS were reviewed by a multidisciplinary group., Results: Compared with cytology screening, HPV screening is more sensitive to detect precancers but less specific. In women aged ≥30, if the test is negative, HPV screening greatly reduces the risk of developing precancer and cancer for at least 5 years. HPV testing, using validated PCR-based assays, is as sensitive and slightly less specific on self-samples than on clinician-taken samples. Self-sampling is more effective to reach underscreened women than sending invitations to have a specimen taken by a clinician. Two-time triage strategies ensure a sufficiently high risk if triage-positive to justify referral and low risk if triage-negative allowing release to routine screening., Conclusions: The HAS recommends three-yearly cytology screening for women aged 25-29 and HPV screening for those aged 30-65 with an extension of the screening interval to 5 years if the HPV test is negative. Self-sampling should be offered to underscreened women aged ≥30. HPV-positive women should be triaged with cytology. Those with abnormal cytology should be referred for colposcopy and those with normal cytology re-tested for HPV 12 months later. Recommendations for implementation of HPV-based screening in the organized program are provided., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) provides short- and medium-term estimates on changes in budgets and health outcomes resulting from the adoption of new health interventions., Objective: The purpose of this study is to present the newly developed French National Authority for Health (HAS) guidelines on budget impact analysis as follows: process, literature review, recommendations and comparisons with other guidelines., Methods: The development process of the HAS guidelines included a literature review (search dates: January 2000 to June 2016), a retrospective investigation of BIA previously submitted to HAS, a public consultation, international expert reviews and approval from the HAS Board and the Economic and Public Health Evaluation Committee of HAS., Results: Documents identified in the literature review included 12 national guidelines, 5 recommendations for good practices developed by national and international society of health economics and 14 methodological publications including recommendations for conducting BIA. Based on its research findings, HAS developed its first BIA guidelines, which include recommendations on the following topics: BIA definition, perspective, populations, time horizon, compared scenarios, budget impact models, costing, discounting, choice of clinical data, reporting of results and uncertainty exploration., Conclusion: It is expected that the HAS BIA guidelines will enhance the usefulness, quality and transparency of BIA submitted by drug manufacturers to HAS. BIA is becoming an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of healthcare interventions in France, which also includes cost-effectiveness analysis and equity of access to healthcare.

Introduction: Budget impact analysis (BIA) provides short and medium-term estimates on changes in budgets and resources resulting from the adoption of new health interventions., Objective: The objective of this article is to present the main messages of the newly developed French National Authority for Health (HAS) guidelines on budget impact analysis : issues, recommendations and perspectives., Methods: The HAS guidelines development process was based on data derived from a literature review on BIA (search dates : January 2000 to June 2016), an HAS retrospective investigation, a public consultation, international expert advice, and approval from the HAS Board and the Economic and Public Health Evaluation Committee., Results: Based on its research findings, HAS developed its first BIA guidelines, which include recommendations on the following topics : BIA definition, perspective, populations, time horizon, compared scenarios, budget impact models, costing, discounting, choice of clinical data, reporting of results and uncertainty analysis., Conclusion: The HAS BIA guidelines are expected to enhance the usefulness of BIA as an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of healthcare interventions, which itself includes cost-effectiveness analysis and equity of access to healthcare.

Objectives: Untreated obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness, increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, and road traffic accidents (RTAs), which impact survival and health-related quality of life. This study, funded by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of different treatments (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], dental devices, lifestyle advice, and no treatment) in patients with mild-to-moderate OSAHS in France., Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of two cohorts, stratified by CV risk, over a lifetime horizon. Daytime sleepiness and RTAs were taken into account for all patients while CV events were only considered for patients with high CV risk., Results: For patients with low CV risk, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dental devices versus no treatment varied between 32,976 EUR (moderate OSAHS) and 45,579 EUR (mild OSAHS) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and CPAP versus dental devices, above 256,000 EUR/QALY. For patients with high CV risk, CPAP was associated with a gain of 0.62 QALY compared with no treatment, resulting in an ICER of 10,128 EUR/QALY., Conclusion: The analysis suggests that it is efficient to treat all OSAHS patients with high CV risk with CPAP and that dental devices are more efficient than CPAP for mild-to-moderate OSAHS with low CV risk. However, out-of-pocket costs are currently much higher for dental devices than for CPAP (i.e., 3,326 EUR versus 2,430 EUR) as orthodontic treatment is mainly non-refundable in France.

Background: In France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France., Methods/principal Findings: We estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing ("current practice") to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18-69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. "Current practice" produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY., Conclusions/significance: One-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to "current practice" and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.

Objective: This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of stent grafts in the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections., Method: Our health technology assessment method combined a critical review of the literature with experts' opinions. Several databases, useful Web sites, and the gray literature were searched from January 1995 to December 2004. Some manually retrieved major articles published in 2005 were also included. The draft report was submitted to and discussed by a working group of 12 members nominated by relevant medical societies. The amended report was submitted to a multidisciplinary group of 12 peer reviewers for comment., Results: Endovascular stent grafting (ESG) repair for lesions of the thoracic aorta, including aneurysms, dissections, and aortic isthmus ruptures, is probably beneficial in terms of operative mortality and severe morbidity, with an incidence of paraplegia of 2.1% (range 0%-7%) for ESG vs 5% (range, 3%-15%) for surgery, provided that there is a rigorous medium-term assessment and that anatomic factors are favorable. A proximal neck length of at least 2 cm is needed to insert the stent graft. Indications for ESG in thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection are similar to those for surgery. Endovascular stent grafting is particularly appropriate in patients with multiple traumas to the thoracic aorta in whom concomitant lesions are a contraindication to open surgery. Endovascular stent graft repair can only be done in public or private centers with expertise in both endovascular and surgical procedures and with adequate technical facilities. Patients should be informed of the advantages and drawbacks of both methods. A multidisciplinary discussion should address risks of converting to open surgery and possible need for a cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients should be monitored annually by computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging and plain radiographs because long-term results are uncertain (possible stent graft deterioration, onset of aortic disease). They should be told of the need for surveillance and possible further treatment., Conclusions: A prospective registry of all thoracic aorta procedures (endovascular treatment, open surgery, thoracic ESG plus extra-anatomic bypass) needs to be set up. All practitioners and stent graft manufacturers should contribute to this registry. It should include information on patient monitoring in order to (1) select patients who could be treated by ESG repair, (2) assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled study comparing ESG and surgery, (3) assess the medium-term outcome of different devices, and (4) obtain a better understanding of the health economics aspects.