Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic performance of the 70-gene signature, MammaPrint, in an Italian single-center prospective cohort of early-stage intermediate-risk breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: A total of 195 eligible early BC cases were tested for genomic risk between 2006 and 2013. In this retrospective analysis, the association of genomic risk with distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Cox regression models, adjusting for clinical and pathological tumor characteristics. Results: MammaPrint identified 118 (60.5 %) patients with genomically Low Risk tumors and 77 (39.5 %) patients with genomically High Risk tumors. Age, menopausal status, tumor size, receptor status, and nodal status were comparable between MammaPrint Risk categories. The median follow-up was 8.4 years for DMFS and 9.3 years for OS; 8-year follow-up was reported for both endpoints. The 8-year DMFS was 90.4 % (95 % CI 84.9–95.9) in patients with MammaPrint Low Risk tumors compared to 60.8 % (95 % CI 49.8–71.8) for patients with High Risk tumors. Patients with MammaPrint Low Risk tumors exhibited significantly superior 8-year OS (97.3 %; 95 % CI 94.4–100) compared with MammaPrint High Risk tumors (89.5 %; 95 % CI 82.6–96.4; p = 0.028). Multivariate analyses identified MammaPrint as significantly associated with 8-year DMFS and MammaPrint together with Progesterone Receptor positivity with 8-year OS. Conclusion: The prognostic performance of MammaPrint was demonstrated in early-stage clinically intermediate to high-risk BC patients. Moreover, patients with MammaPrint Low Risk tumors had good outcome regardless of treatment regimen, thus supporting personalized treatment choices.

BackgroundLung cancer, predominantly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), remains a formidable challenge, necessitating an in-depth understanding of evolving treatment paradigms. The Italian Lung Cancer Observational Study (LUCENT) addresses this need by investigating the outcomes of patients with early and locally advanced lung cancer in Italy. ObjectiveWith a focus on real-world data and patient registries, this study aims to provide comprehensive insights into clinical, psychosocial, and economic impacts, contributing to informed decision-making in health care. MethodsLUCENT is a prospective observational multicenter cohort study enrolling patients eligible for minimally invasive manual, robot-assisted, or traditional open surgery. The study will develop a web-based registry to collect longitudinal surgical, oncological, and socioeconomic outcome data. The primary objectives include performance assessment through the establishment of national benchmarks based on risk-adjusted outcomes and processes of care indicators. The secondary objectives encompass economic and psychosocial impact assessments of innovative technologies and treatment pathways. The multicenter design ensures a diverse and representative study population. ResultsThe evolving landscape of NSCLC treatment necessitates a nuanced approach with consideration of the dynamic shifts in therapeutic strategies. LUCENT strives to fill existing knowledge gaps by providing a platform for collecting and analyzing real-world data, emphasizing the importance of patient-reported outcomes in enhancing the understanding of the disease. By developing a web-based registry, the study not only facilitates efficient data collection but also addresses the limitations of traditional methods, such as suboptimal response rates and costs associated with paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Recruitment will be conducted from January 01, 2024, to December 31, 2026. Follow-up will be performed for a minimum of 2 years. The study will be completed in the year 2028. ConclusionsLUCENT’s potential implications are substantial. Establishing national benchmarks will enable a thorough evaluation of outcomes and care processes, guiding clinicians and policymakers in optimizing patient management. Furthermore, the study’s secondary objectives, focusing on economic and psychosocial impacts, align with the contemporary emphasis on holistic cancer care. Insights gained from this study may influence treatment strategies, resource utilization, and patient well-being, thereby contributing to the ongoing refinement of lung cancer management. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05851755; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05851755. ISRCTN 67197140; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN67197140 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/57183

Background: Inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials is strongly recommended. However, selecting the most appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is not easy. This study aimed to develop a breast cancer (BC) specific comprehensive archive of PROMs. Methods: As part of the PRO4All project, we identified available PROMs in oncology by searching facit.org, eortc.org, eprovide.mapi-trust.org, PubMed, ema.europa.eu (European Public Assessment Reports) and published reviews. For this analysis, only BC tools were extracted. We described information about PROM name, type of questionnaire, questionnaire variant(s), recall period, number of items, and presence of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) reference in literature. Then, we assigned each item to a specific domain according to a predefined taxonomy of 38 items for outcome classification. Results: We identified and analyzed 383 PROMs. Of these, 29 were BC specific, but 2 were excluded because the questionnaires description was not available. 6 (22.2 %) were variants of another questionnaire. All questionnaires were self-reported. In 6 cases (22.2 %) the recall period to consider was the “last week”. The mean number of items per questionnaire was 25.81 (range 6–71). 602 items were assigned to an outcome domain: emotional functioning/wellbeing in 26.6 % of cases, physical functioning in 14.1 %, delivery of care in 10.8 %, and general outcomes in 10.5 %. MCID reference was found only in 4 (14.8 %) cases. Conclusions: The newly developed archive represents a useful tool to optimize the use of PROMs in the evaluation of treatments in BC patients, promoting a patient-centered approach both in clinical research and practice.

Summary: Background: Self-management is pivotal in addressing noncommunicable diseases, such as diabetes. The increased availability of digital behaviour change interventions (DBCIs) delivered through mobile health apps offers unprecedented opportunities to enhance self-management and improve health outcomes. However, little is known about the characteristics of DBCIs for diabetes that significantly impact glycaemic control. Therefore, our systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to summarize characteristics and behaviour change components in DBCIs for diabetes self-management and explore potential associations with metabolic outcomes. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials published until November 2023. The main outcome variable was the change in the mean difference of HbA1c levels between baseline and follow-up across intervention and control groups. Random-effects meta-regression was used to explore variation in glycaemic control as a function of prespecified characteristics of study designs and app interventions. Findings: A total of 57 studies was included in the analysis, showing a statistically significant percentage point reduction in HbA1c for the intervention group compared to the control arm (−0.36, 95% CI = −0.46 to −0.26, p

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process whereby patients and clinicians jointly deliberate on the best treatment option that takes into account patients’ preferences and values. In breast cancer care, different treatment options have become available to patients in the last decade. Various interventions, including patient decision aids (PtDAs), have been designed to promote SDM in this disease area. This study aimed at investigating the factors that influence the successful adoption and implementation of SDM interventions in real-world healthcare delivery settings. Methods A scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted for the period 2006–2021 to analyse the support for SDM interventions and their adoption in breast cancer clinical practice. The interpretation of findings was based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Results Overall, 19 studies were included for data synthesis, with more than 70% published since 2017. The availability of SDM tools does not automatically translate into their actual use in clinical settings. Factors related to users’ co-creation, the clinical team’s attitude and knowledge, organisational support and regulatory provisions facilitate the adoption of SDM interventions. However, overlooking aspects such as the re-organisation of care pathways, patient characteristics, and assigning of resources (human, financial, and facilities) can hinder implementation efforts. Conclusions Compared to the mounting evidence on the efficacy of SDM interventions, knowledge to support their sustained implementation in daily care is still limited, albeit results show an increasing interest in strategies that facilitate their uptake in breast cancer care over time. These findings highlight different strategies that can be used to embed SDM interventions in clinical practice. Future work should investigate which approaches are more effective in light of organisational conditions and external factors, including an evaluation of costs and healthcare system settings.

Abstract Italy was the first country in Europe to be hit by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Little research has been conducted to understand the economic impact of providing care for SARS-CoV-2 patients during the pandemic. Our study aims to quantify the incremental healthcare costs for hospitalizations associated to being discharged before or after the first SARS-CoV-2 case was notified in Italy, and to a positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 notified infection. We used data on hospitalizations for 9 different diagnosis related groups at a large Italian Research Hospital with discharge date between 1st January, 2018 and 31st December 2021. The median overall costs for a hospitalization increased from 2410EUR (IQR: 1588–3828) before the start of the pandemic, to 2645EUR (IQR: 1885–4028) and 3834EUR (IQR: 2463–6413) during the pandemic, respectively for patients SARS-CoV-2 negative and positive patients. Interestingly, according to results of a generalized linear model, the highest increases in the average costs sustained for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with respect to patients discharged before the pandemic was found among those with diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, i.e. kidney and urinary tract infections with CC (59.71%), intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral infarction (53.33), and pulmonary edema and respiratory failure (47.47%). Our study highlights the economic burden during the COVID-19 pandemic on the hospital system in Italy based on individual patient data. These results contribute to the to the debate around the efficiency of the healthcare services provision during a pandemic.

Abstract Background The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. Methods A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. Results The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. Conclusions The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Summary: Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)—thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Abstract Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials.

BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) solutions have proven to be effective in a wide range of patient outcomes and have proliferated over time. However, a persistent challenge of digital health technologies, including mHealth, is that they are characterized by early dropouts in clinical practice and struggle to be used outside experimental settings or on larger scales. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore barriers and enablers to the uptake of mHealth solutions used by patients with cancer undergoing treatment, using a theory-guided implementation science model, that is, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). MethodsA scoping literature review was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases in March 2022. We selected studies that analyzed the development, evaluation, and implementation of mHealth solutions for patients with cancer that were used in addition to the standard of care. Only empirical designs (eg, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies) were considered. First, information on the study characteristics, patient population, app functionalities, and study outcomes was extracted. Then, the CFIR model was used as a practical tool to guide data collection and interpretation of evidence on mHealth uptake. ResultsOverall, 91 papers were included in the data synthesis. The selected records were mostly randomized controlled trials (26/91, 29%) and single-arm, noncomparative studies (52/91, 57%). Most of the apps (42/73, 58%) were designed for both patients and clinicians and could be used to support any type of cancer (29/73, 40%) and a range of oncological treatments. Following the CFIR scheme (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, process), multistakeholder co-design, codevelopment, and testing of mHealth interventions were identified as key enablers for later uptake. A variety of external drivers emerged, although the most relevant outer incentive fostering mHealth use was addressing patient needs. Among organizational factors likely to influence technology uptake, interoperability was the most prominent, whereas other providers’ dimensions such as managerial attitudes or organizational culture were not systematically discussed. Technology-related impediments that could hamper the use of mHealth at the individual level were considered least often. ConclusionsThe hype surrounding mHealth in cancer care is hindered by several factors that can affect its use in real world and nonexperimental settings. Compared with the growing evidence on mHealth efficacy, knowledge to inform the uptake of mHealth solutions in clinical cancer care is still scarce. Although some of our findings are supported by previous implementation research, our analysis elaborates on the distinguishing features of mHealth apps and provides an integrated perspective on the factors that should be accounted for implementation efforts. Future syntheses should liaise these dimensions with strategies observed in successful implementation initiatives.

The attention paid by regulatory authorities to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their related measures (PROMs) has progressively increased to allow for a more complete description of the patient’s health status. This work aimed at investigating the use of PROs/PROMs in relation to reimbursement agreement and innovativeness recognition by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). The list of European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs), downloaded from the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, was analyzed to identify drugs authorized between 2017 and 2021. The associations between the use of PROs/PROMs in the EPARs and the reimbursement and innovativeness status in Italy were explored through Chi2 test and logistic regression. In addition, each innovativeness report was analyzed to identify any further evidence about the consideration of PROs/PROM in the decision-making process. Of the 403 EPARs analyzed, 197 (48.9%) reported the use of PROs/PROMs. A subsample of 229 drugs with a reimbursement class (A, H, or C) officially assigned by AIFA was further investigated. Of them, 49.3% reported the use of PROs/PROMs. The Chi2 test revealed a statistically significant association between the use of PROs/PROMs and innovativeness (p = 0.001) and orphan status (p = 0.012). In the logistic regression, orphan status and availability of PROs/PROMs are significant predictors of the innovativeness status. However, of the 46 innovative drugs, only 9 (19.6%) explicitly reported a consideration of a PRO/PROM in their innovativeness reports. Robust instrument’s validation, reliable data collection and growing potential’s awareness are keys to increase the consideration of PROs at every step of the drug development process.

Abstract COVID-19 pandemic challenges have accelerated the reliance on digital health fuelling the expanded incorporation of mobile apps into healthcare services, particularly for the management of long-term conditions such as chronic diseases (CDs). However, the impact of health apps on outcomes for CD remains unclear, potentially owing to both the poor adoption of formal development standards in the design process and the methodological quality of studies. A systematic search of randomised trials was performed on Medline, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library and Scopus to provide a comprehensive outlook and review the impact of health apps on CD. We identified 69 studies on diabetes (n = 29), cardiovascular diseases (n = 13), chronic respiratory diseases (n = 13), cancer (n = 10) or their combinations (n = 4). The apps rarely adopted developmental factors in the design stage, with only around one-third of studies reporting user or healthcare professional engagement. Apps differed significantly in content, with a median of eight behaviour change techniques adopted, most frequently pertaining to the ‘Feedback and monitoring’ (91%) and ‘Shaping knowledge’ (72%) categories. As for the study methodologies, all studies adopted a traditional randomised control trial (RCT) design, with relatively short follow-ups and limited sample sizes. Findings were not significant for the majority of studies across all CD, with most RCTs revealing a high risk of bias. To support the adoption of apps for CD management, this review reinforces the need for more robust development and appropriate study characteristics to sustain evidence generation and elucidate whether study results reflect the true benefits of apps or a biased estimate due to unsuitable designs.

Introduction: Health state valuation and diagnostic-therapeutic pathways at the junction between non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are not well documented. We aimed at: (i) estimating the disability weights (DWs) for health states across a continuum of disease from asymptomatic non-metastatic (nmCRPC) to symptomatic metastatic state (mCRPC); (ii) mapping the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of nmCRPC in Italy. Methods: Structured qualitative interviews were performed with clinical experts to gather information on nmCRPC clinical pathway. An online survey was administered to clinical experts to estimate DWs for four CRPC health states defined from interviews and literature review (i.e., nmCRPC, asymptomatic mCRPC, symptomatic mCRPC, mCRPC in progression during or after chemotherapy). Clinicians’ preferences for health states were elicited using the Person-Trade-Off (PTO) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) methods. DWs associated with each health state, from 0 (best imaginable health state) and 1 (worst imaginable health state), were estimated. Results: We found that the management of nmCRPC is heterogeneous across Italian regions and hospitals, especially with respect to diagnostic imaging techniques. DWs for PTO ranged from 0.415 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.208-0.623) in nmCRPC to 0.740 (95% CI 0.560-0.920) in mCRPC, in progression during or after chemotherapy. DWs for VAS ranged between 0.246 (95% CI 0.131-0.361) in nmCRPC to 0.689 (95% CI 0.583-0.795) in mCRPC, in progression during or after chemotherapy. Conclusions: Estimated DWs suggest that delaying transition to a metastatic state might ease the disease burden at both patient and societal levels.

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.Methods and analysis The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

Introduction Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a primary patient-relevant outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently, that is, with shorter time, smaller sample size and lower cost. However, there is currently no consensus-driven guideline for the reporting of RCTs using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the design and reporting of these trials. As an initial step, scoping and targeted reviews will identify potential items for inclusion in the extensions and participants to contribute to a Delphi consensus process.Methods and analysis The scoping review will search and include literature reporting on the current understanding, limitations and guidance on using surrogate endpoints in trials. Relevant literature will be identified through: (1) bibliographic databases; (2) grey literature; (3) handsearching of reference lists and (4) solicitation from experts. Data from eligible records will be thematically analysed into potential items for inclusion in extensions. The targeted review will search for RCT reports and protocols published from 2017 to 2021 in six high impact general medical journals. Trial corresponding author contacts will be listed as potential participants for the Delphi exercise.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. The reviews will support the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for reporting surrogate primary endpoints (surrogate endpoint as the primary outcome). The findings will be published in open-access publications.This review has been prospectively registered in the OSF Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WP3QH.

Cancer and anticancer treatments can lead to several negative side effects, including malnutrition. Despite the recognized need for adequate nutritional support in cancer patients, in daily clinical practice, nutrition is still not considered one of the first aspects to be considered. Malnutrition negatively affects the clinical outcomes, treatment response, and overall survival of cancer patients. In this study, three of the most controversial issues related to malnutrition, which emerged during an Italian Consensus Conference, were addressed specifically for patients with head and neck as well as gastrointestinal cancer. The timing of nutritional evaluation and intervention, extension of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) protocols, and cost-effectiveness of nutritional interventions have been considered. This study aimed to illustrate the state-of-the art of each issue and hypothesize future perspectives and actions to be taken, trying to suggest a new nutritional management model for cancer patients in Italy that overcomes the critical issues encountered. Of note, the timely diagnosis of nutritional issue appears to be essential to ensure the correct management of malnourished cancer patients as well as those who are at high risk of malnutrition. Standardized protocols, screening tests, and the inclusion of nutritional parameters in patient medical records would help to achieve good clinical outcomes. Finally, appropriate nutritional support is also associated with cost savings, and it seems necessary to promote its clinical and economic value to obtain improvements in both outcomes and management costs.

Abstract Objective There is limited evidence regarding the economic effects of nutrition support in cancer patients. This study aims at investigating the cost-effectiveness profile of systematic oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) and receiving nutritional counseling. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a RCT was performed to estimate direct medical costs, life years gained (LYG) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for nutritional counseling with or without ONS at 5-month and 6-year follow up time. Value of information analysis was performed to value the expected gain from reducing uncertainty through further data collection. Results ONS with nutritional counseling produced higher QALY than nutritional counseling alone (0.291 ± 0.087 vs 0.288 ± 0.087), however the difference was not significant (0.0027, P = 0.84). Mean costs were €987.60 vs €996.09, respectively in the treatment and control group (-€8.96, P = 0.98). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was -€3,277/QALY, with 55.4% probabilities of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000/QALY. The Expected Incremental Benefit was €95.16 and the Population Expected Value of Perfect Information was €8.6 million, implying that additional research is likely to be worthwhile. At a median 6-year follow up, the treatment group had a significantly better survival rate when adjusting for late effect (P = 0.039). Conclusion Our findings provide the first evidence to inform decisions about funding and reimbursement of ONS in combination with nutritional counseling in HNC patients undergoing RT. ONS may improve quality of cancer care at no additional costs, however further research on the cost-effectiveness of nutritional supplementation is recommended. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02055833. Registered 5th February 2014 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02055833

Abstract Background A Core Outcomes Set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical studies related to a specific condition. Using prostate cancer as a case study, we identified, summarized, and critically appraised published COS development studies and assessed the degree of overlap between them and selected real-world data (RWD) sources. Methods We conducted a scoping review of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database to identify all COS studies developed for prostate cancer. Several characteristics (i.e., study type, methods for consensus, type of participants, outcomes included in COS and corresponding measurement instruments, timing, and sources) were extracted from the studies; outcomes were classified according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. The study methodology was assessed based on the recent COS-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. A ‘mapping’ exercise was conducted between the COS identified and RWD routinely collected in selected European countries. Results Eleven COS development studies published between 1995 and 2017 were retrieved, of which 8 were classified as ‘COS for clinical trials and clinical research’, 2 as ‘COS for practice’ and 1 as ‘COS patient reported outcomes’. Recommended outcomes were mainly categorized into ‘mortality and survival’ (17%), ‘outcomes related to neoplasm’ (18%), and ‘renal and urinary outcomes’ (13%) with no relevant differences among COS study types. The studies generally fulfilled the criteria for the COS-STAD ‘scope specification’ domain but not the ‘stakeholders involved’ and ‘consensus process’ domains. About 72% overlap existed between COS and linked administrative data sources, with important gaps. Linking with patient registries improved coverage (85%), but was sometimes limited to smaller follow-up patient groups. Conclusions This scoping review identified few COS development studies in prostate cancer, some quite dated and with a growing level of methodological quality over time. This study revealed promising overlap between COS and RWD sources, though with important limitations; linking established, national patient registries to administrative data provide the best means to additionally capture patient-reported and some clinical outcomes over time. Thus, increasing the combination of different data sources and the interoperability of systems to follow larger patient groups in RWD is required.

BackgroundThere is currently limited evidence on the level and intensity of physical activity in individuals with hemophilia A. Mobile technologies can offer a rigorous and reliable alternative to support data collection processes but they are often associated with poor user retention. The lack of longitudinal continuity in their use can be partly attributed to the insufficient consideration of stakeholder inputs in the development process of mobile apps. Several user-centered models have been proposed to guarantee that a thorough knowledge of the end user needs is considered in the development process of mobile apps. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to design and validate an electronic patient-reported outcome mobile app that requires sustained active input by individuals during POWER, an observational study that aims at evaluating the relationship between physical activity levels and bleeding in patients with hemophilia A. MethodsWe adopted a user-centered design and engaged several stakeholders in the development and usability testing of this mobile app. During the concept generation and ideation phase, we organized a need-assessment focus group (FG) with patient representatives to elicit specific design requirements for the end users. We then conducted 2 exploratory FGs to seek additional inputs for the app’s improvement and 2 confirmatory FGs to validate the app and test its usability in the field through the mobile health app usability questionnaire. ResultsThe findings from the thematic analysis of the need-assessment FG revealed that there was a demand for sense making, for simplification of app functionalities, for maximizing integration, and for minimizing the feeling of external control. Participants involved in the later stages of the design refinement contributed to improving the design further by upgrading the app’s layout and making the experience with the app more efficient through functions such as chatbots and visual feedback on the number of hours a wearable device had been worn, to ensure that the observed data were actually registered. The end users rated the app highly during the quantitative assessment, with an average mobile health app usability questionnaire score of 5.32 (SD 0.66; range 4.44-6.23) and 6.20 (SD 0.43; range 5.72-6.88) out of 7 in the 2 iterative usability testing cycles. ConclusionsThe results of the usability test indicated a high, growing satisfaction with the electronic patient-reported outcome app. The adoption of a thorough user-centered design process using several types of FGs helped maximize the likelihood of sustained retention of the app’s users and made it fit for data collection of relevant outcomes in the observational POWER study. The continuous use of the app and the actual level of engagement will be evaluated during the ongoing trial. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04165135; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04165135

Objectives: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of medical devices (MDs) may be different for early and late technology adopter countries, as well as the potential health technology assessment (HTA) solutions to tackle them. This study aims to provide guidance to Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries on how to address key challenges of HTA for MDs with special focus on the transferability of scientific evidence.Methods: As part of the COMED Horizon 2020 project, a comprehensive list of issues related to MD HTA were identified based on a targeted literature review. Health technology assessment issues which pose a greater challenge or require different solutions in late technology adopter countries were selected. Draught recommendations to address these issues were developed and discussed in a focus group. The recommendations were then validated with a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision makers from CEE countries in May and June 2020.Results: A consolidated list of 11 recommendations were developed in 3 major areas: (1) clinical value assessment, focusing on the use of joint EU work, relying on real-world evidence, use of coverage with evidence development schemes, transferring evidence from foreign countries and addressing the challenges of learning curve and centre effect; (2) economic value assessment, covering cost calculation of complex medical devices and transferability of economic evaluations of MDs; (3) HTA processes, related to the frequent product modifications and various indications of MDs.Conclusions: Central and Eastern European countries with limited resources for conducting HTA, can benefit from HTA methods and evidence generated in early technology adopter countries. Considering the appropriate reuse of international HTA materials, late technology adopter countries can still implement HTA, even for MDs, which have a more limited evidence base compared with pharmaceuticals.

In this viewpoint, we discuss the approach promoted by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) to the assessment of the value of new pharmaceuticals in the Italian Healthcare Service. On top of traditionally acknowledged components, such as quality adjusted life years gained and net costs, the overall value framework might include other elements such as productivity and adherence, equity, severity of disease, reduction in uncertainty, spillover effects. There is a residual dimension in the value framework that may capture the option value or reduction in fear of contagion for infectious disease treatments. We debate measurement issues on these elements of value and discuss open issues from a methodological and policy standpoint.

Abstract Background Trans-arterial radio-embolization (TARE) is an emerging treatment for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). TARE may compete with systemic chemotherapy, sorafenib, in intermediate stage patients with prior chemoembolization failure or advanced patients with tumoral macrovascular invasion with no extra-hepatic spread and good liver function. We performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) evaluating the expected changes in the expenditure for the Italian Healthcare Service within scenarios of increased utilization of TARE in place of sorafenib over the next five years. Methods Starting from patient level data from three oncology centres in Italy, a Markov model was developed to project on a lifetime horizon survivals and costs associated to matched cohorts of intermediate-advanced HCC patients treated with TARE or sorafenib. The initial model has been integrated with epidemiological data to perform a BIA comparing the current scenario with 20 and 80% utilization rates for TARE and sorafenib, respectively, with increasing utilization rates of TARE of 30, 40 and 50% over the next 1, 3 and 5 years. Results Compared to the current scenario, progressively increasing utilization rates of TARE over sorafenib in the next 5 years is expected to save globally about 7 million Euros. Conclusions Radioembolization can be considered a valuable treatment option for patients with intermediate-advanced HCC. These findings enrich the evidence about the economic sustainability of TARE in comparison to standard systemic chemotherapy within the context of a national healthcare service.

Abstract Background Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) is a new approach for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, limited to a few specialist centers, with limited evidence base. We developed a cost-effectiveness decision model of fEVAR compared to open surgical repair (OSR) to investigate the likely direction of costs and benefits and inform further research projects on this technology. Methods A systematic review with meta-analysis and a four-state Markov model were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of fEVAR versus OSR. We used a recent coverage with evidence development framework to characterize the main sources of uncertainty and inform decisions about the type of further research that would be most worthwhile and feasible. Results Seven observational comparative studies were identified, of which four presented odds ratios adjusted for confounders. The odds ratios for operative mortality varied widely between studies. Assuming a central estimate of the odds ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.05–6.24), the decision model estimated that the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was £74,580/QALY with a probability of 9 and 16% of being cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, respectively. The Expected Value of Perfect Information over 10 years at a threshold of £20,000/QALY was £11.2 million. Operative mortality contributed to most of the uncertainty in the decision model. Conclusions In the case of “maturing technologies”, decision modelling indicates the likely direction of costs and benefits and guides the development of further research projects. In our analysis of fEVAR versus OSR, decision uncertainty, particularly around operative mortality, might be effectively resolved by a short-term RCT, or possibly a well-conducted comparative observational study. Decision makers may consider that a conditional coverage decision is warranted with assessments required to make this type of recommendation depending on local priorities and circumstances.

Abstract Background The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often approves new drugs based on trials that use surrogate markers for endpoints, which involve certain trade-offs and may risk making erroneous inferences about the medical product’s actual clinical effect. This study aims to compare the treatment effects among pivotal trials supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutics based on surrogate markers of disease with those observed among postapproval trials for the same indication. Methods We searched Drugs@FDA and PubMed to identify published randomized superiority design pivotal trials for all novel drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2005 and 2012 based on surrogate markers as primary endpoints and published postapproval trials using the same surrogate markers or patient-relevant outcomes as endpoints. Summary ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and difference between standardized mean differences (dSMDs) were used to quantify the average difference in treatment effects between pivotal and matched postapproval trials. Results Between 2005 and 2012, the FDA approved 88 novel drugs for 90 indications based on one or multiple pivotal trials using surrogate markers of disease. Of these, 27 novel drugs for 27 indications were approved based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary endpoints that could be matched to at least one postapproval trial, for a total of 43 matches. For nine (75.0%) of the 12 matches using the same non-continuous surrogate markers as trial endpoints, pivotal trials had larger treatment effects than postapproval trials. On average, treatment effects were 50% higher (more beneficial) in the pivotal than the postapproval trials (ROR 1.5; 95% confidence interval CI 1.01–2.23). For 17 (54.8%) of the 31 matches using the same continuous surrogate markers as trial endpoints, pivotal trials had larger treatment effects than the postapproval trials. On average, there was no difference in treatment effects between pivotal and postapproval trials (dSMDs 0.01; 95% CI -0.15–0.16). Conclusions Many postapproval drug trials are not directly comparable to previously published pivotal trials, particularly with respect to endpoint selection. Although treatment effects from pivotal trials supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutics based on non-continuous surrogate markers of disease are often larger than those observed among postapproval trials using surrogate markers as trial endpoints, there is no evidence of difference between pivotal and postapproval trials using continuous surrogate markers.

Abstract Background Evidence shows that territorial borders continue to have an impact on research collaboration in Europe. Knowledge of national research structural contexts is therefore crucial to the promotion of Europe-wide policies for research funding. Nevertheless, studies assessing and comparing research systems remain scarce. This paper aims to further the knowledge on national research landscapes in Europe, focusing on non-communicable disease (NCD) research in Italy and Germany. Methods To capture the architecture of country-specific research funding systems, a three-fold strategy was adopted. First, a literature review was conducted to determine a list of key public, voluntary/private non-profit and commercial research funding organisations (RFOs). Second, an electronic survey was administered qualifying RFOs. Finally, survey results were integrated with semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders in NCD research. Three major dimensions of interest were investigated – funding mechanisms, funding patterns and expectations regarding outputs. Results The number of RFOs in Italy is four times larger than that in Germany and the Italian research system has more project funding instruments than the German system. Regarding the funding patterns towards NCD areas, in both countries, respiratory disease research resulted as the lowest funded, whereas cancer research was the target of most funding streams. The most reported expected outputs of funded research activity were scholarly publication of articles and reports. Conclusions This cross-country comparison on the Italian and German research funding structures revealed substantial differences between the two systems. The current system is prone to duplicated research efforts, popular funding for some diseases and intransparency of research results. Future research will require addressing the need for better coordination of research funding efforts, even more so if European research efforts are to play a greater role.

Background: Current national and international guidelines on the management of heart failure (HF) recommend exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR), but do not differentiate this recommendation according to patient subgroups. Objectives: (1) To obtain definitive estimates of the impact of ExCR interventions compared with no exercise intervention (control) on mortality, hospitalisation, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in HF patients; (2) to determine the differential (subgroup) effects of ExCR in HF patients according to their age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, HF aetiology, New York Heart Association class and baseline exercise capacity; and (3) to assess whether or not the change in exercise capacity mediates for the impact of the ExCR on final outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation and HRQoL), and determine if this is an acceptable surrogate end point. Design: This was an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Setting: An international literature review. Participants: HF patients in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ExCR. Interventions: ExCR for at least 3 weeks compared with a no-exercise control, with 6 months’ follow-up. Main outcome measures: All-cause and HF-specific mortality, all-cause and HF-specific hospitalisation, exercise capacity and HRQoL. Data sources: IPD from eligible RCTs. Review methods: RCTs from the Exercise Training Meta-Analysis of Trials for Chronic Heart Failure (ExTraMATCH/ExTraMATCH II) IPD meta-analysis and a 2014 Cochrane systematic review of ExCR (Taylor RS, Sagar VA, Davies EJ, Briscoe S, Coats AJ, Dalal H, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;4:CD003331). Results: Out of the 23 eligible RCTs (4398 patients), 19 RCTs (3990 patients) contributed data to this IPD meta-analysis. There was a wide variation in exercise programme prescriptions across included studies. Compared with control, there was no statistically significant difference in pooled time-to-event estimates in favour of ExCR, although confidence intervals (CIs) were wide: all-cause mortality had a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.04); HF-related mortality had a HR of 0.84 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.46); all-cause hospitalisation had a HR of 0.90 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.06); and HF-related hospitalisation had a HR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.35). There was a statistically significant difference in favour of ExCR for exercise capacity and HRQoL. Compared with the control, improvements were seen in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) (mean 21.0 m, 95% CI 1.57 to 40.4 m) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (mean –5.94, 95% CI –1.0 to –10.9; lower scores indicate improved HRQoL) at 12 months’ follow-up. No strong evidence for differential intervention effects across patient characteristics was found for any outcomes. Moderate to good levels of correlation (R2trial > 50% and p > 0.50) between peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) or the 6MWT with mortality and HRQoL were seen. The estimated surrogate threshold effect was an increase of 1.6 to 4.6 ml/kg/minute for VO2peak. Limitations: There was a lack of consistency in how included RCTs defined and collected the outcomes: it was not possible to obtain IPD from all includable trials for all outcomes and patient-level data on exercise adherence was not sought. Conclusions: In comparison with the no-exercise control, participation in ExCR improved the exercise and HRQoL in HF patients, but appeared to have no effect on their mortality or hospitalisation. No strong evidence was found of differential intervention effects of ExCR across patient characteristics. VO2peak and 6MWT may be suitable surrogate end points for the treatment effect of ExCR on mortality and HRQoL in HF. Future studies should aim to achieve a consensus on the definition of outcomes and promote reporting of a core set of HF data. The research team also seeks to extend current policies to encourage study authors to allow access to RCT data for the purpose of meta-analysis. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014007170. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.