A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

Living with the financial consequences of cancer: A life course perspective

Abstract

Purpose

Financial hardship can be a major cause of distress among persons with cancer, resulting in chronic stress and impacting physical and emotional health. This paper provides an analysis of the lived experience of cancer patients’ financial hardship from diagnosis to post-treatment.     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

Effects of exercise dose and type during breast cancer chemotherapy on longer-term patient-reported outcomes and health-related fitness: A randomized controlled trial

The Combined Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (CARE) Trial compared different types and doses of exercise performed during breast cancer chemotherapy. Here, we report the longer-term follow-up of patient-reported outcomes, health-related fitness and exercise behavior at 6, 12 and 24 months postintervention. A multicenter trial in Canada randomized 301 breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy to thrice weekly, supervised exercise consisting of a standard dose of 25–30 min of aerobic exercise (STAN; n = 96), a higher dose of 50–60 min of aerobic exercise (HIGH; n = 101) or a combined dose of 50–60 min of aerobic and resistance exercise (COMB; n = 104) performed for the duration of chemotherapy (median of 17 weeks). Primary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, cancer-related symptoms and psychosocial outcomes. Secondary outcomes were objective health-related fitness (assessed at 12 months only) and self-reported exercise behavior. A total of 269 (89.4%) participants completed patient-reported outcomes at all three follow-up time points and 263 (87.4%) completed the health-related fitness assessment at 12-month follow-up. COMB was significantly superior to (i) STAN for sleep quality at 6-month follow-up (p = 0.027); (ii) HIGH for upper body muscular endurance at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.020); and (iii) HIGH for meeting the resistance exercise guideline at 6-month follow-up (p = 0.006). Moreover, self-reported meeting of the combined exercise guideline during follow-up was significantly associated with better patient-reported outcomes and health-related fitness. Performing combined exercise during and after breast cancer chemotherapy may result in better longer-term patient-reported outcomes and health-related fitness compared to performing aerobic exercise alone.