Hornberger J.,3715 Haven Avenue |
Michalopoulos S.,3715 Haven Avenue |
Dai M.,3715 Haven Avenue |
Andrade P.,3715 Haven Avenue |
And 2 more authors.
The journal of mental health policy and economics | Year: 2015
BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and other diseases associated with dementia, imposes significant burden to various stakeholders who care for the elderly. Management of AD is complicated by multiple factors including disease-specific features which make it difficult to diagnose accurately during milder stages. Florbetapir F18 positron emission tomography (florbetapir-PET) is an approved imaging tool used to capture beta-amyloid neuritic plaque density in brains of cognitively impaired adults undergoing evaluation for AD and other causes of cognitive impairment. It has the potential to help improve healthcare outcomes as it may help clinicians identify patients with AD early so that treatments are initiated when most effective.AIMS OF THE STUDY: Evaluate the potential long-term clinical and economic outcomes of adopting florbetapir-PET--adjunctive to standard clinical evaluation (SCE)--versus SCE alone in the diagnostic assessment of cognitively impaired patients with suspected AD.METHODS: A decision analysis with a ten-year time horizon was developed in compliance with Good Research Practices and CHEERS guidelines. The target population was comprised of Spanish patients who were undergoing initial assessment for cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score=20). Diagnostic accuracy, rate of cognitive decline, effect of drugs on cognition and dwelling status, economic burden (direct and indirect costs), and quality of life (QoL) were based on relevant clinical studies and published literature. Scenario analysis was applied to explore outcomes under different conditions, which included: (i) use of florbetapir-PET earlier in disease progression (MMSE score=22); and (ii) the addition of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET to SCE.RESULTS: Adjunctive florbetapir-PET increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.008 years and increased costs by 36 compared to SCE alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], 4,769). Use of florbetapir-PET was dominant in alternate scenarios. Sensitivity analyses indicated rates of institutionalization (by MMSE) and MMSE score upon initiation of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment most influenced the primary outcome (ICER) in the base case scenario. Over 82% of probabilistic simulations were cost-effective using the Spanish threshold (30,000/QALY).DISCUSSION: The addition of florbetapir-PET to SCE is expected to improve the accuracy of AD diagnoses for patients experiencing cognitive impairment; it is cost-effective due to decreased healthcare costs and caregiver burden. Prospective studies of the clinical utility of florbetapir-PET are necessary to evaluate the long-term implications of adopting florbetapir-PET on clinical outcomes and costs in real-world settings.IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Florbetapir-PET is expected to improve decision-making regarding appropriate and sufficient care for cognitively impaired patients with suspected AD, while cost-effective.IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Earlier and more accurate diagnosis of AD may help to improve patient's health status and reduce treatment costs by effectively allocating healthcare resources and maximizing the benefit of treatments and supportive services.IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Use of florbetapir-PET may help accurately identify patients with AD. The development of novel therapeutics for use with companion diagnostics may provide additional benefits by slowing or halting progressive cognitive decline with AD, increase QoL and prolong survival. Source
Hornberger J.,3715 Haven Avenue |
Michael D. Alvarado,3715 Haven Avenue |
Rebecca Chien,3715 Haven Avenue |
Hialy R. Gutierrez,3715 Haven Avenue |
And 2 more authors.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Year: 2012
Background At least 14 stratifiers exist to assess recurrence risk, chemotherapy response, and overall survival (OS) in women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). These stratifiers have not been compared using a recently developed rigorous framework. We performed a systematic review of the literature on clinical validity/utility, change in clinical practice, and economic implications of ESBC stratifiers. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and bibliographies of relevant studies. Data were extracted by two investigators and graded using a previously published framework. The Level-of-Evidence determination for each study was summarized, and the studies that provide evidence on change in clinical practice and economic implications are reported. Results Fifty-six articles published original evidence addressing the 21-gene recurrence score (n = 31), 70-gene signature (n = 14), Adjuvant! Online (n = 12), 5-antibody immunohistochemistry panel (n = 3), 5-gene expression index (n = 1), and 14-gene signature (n = 1). The 21-gene recurrence score satisfied Level I evidence (the highest level of evidence among five levels) for estimating distant recurrence risk (DRR), OS, and response to adjuvant chemotherapy, and Level II for estimating local recurrence risk. The 5-antibody immunohistochemistry panel and 70-gene signature satisfied Level II evidence for estimating DRR and OS. Adjuvant! Online satisfied Level II evidence for estimating DRR, OS, and chemotherapy response. The 5-gene expression index satisfied Level III evidence for predicting DRR. The 14-gene signature satisfied Level III evidence for predicting DRR and OS. Ten studies reported changes in clinical practice patterns; seven studies reported economic implications. Conclusion The available evidence on the ability of stratifiers to predict risks of recurrence and response to chemotherapy in ESBC is growing. Level-of-Evidence determinations using the newer framework provide a solid scientific foundation for clinical recommendations. © The Author 2009. Source