No abstract

Predictive biomarkers can guide treatment decisions in breast cancer. Many studies are undertaken to discover and translate these biomarkers, yet few biomarkers make it to practice. Before use in clinical decision making, predictive biomarkers need to demonstrate analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility. While attaining analytical and clinical validity is relatively straightforward, by following methodological recommendations, the achievement of clinical utility is extremely challenging. It requires demonstrating three associations: the biomarker with the outcome (prognostic association), the effect of treatment independent of the biomarker, and the differential treatment effect between the prognostic and the predictive biomarker (predictive association). In addition, economical, ethical, regulatory, organizational and patient/doctor-related aspects are hampering the translational process. Traditionally, these aspects do not receive much attention until formal approval or reimbursement of a biomarker test (informed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA)) is at stake, at which point the clinical utility and sometimes price of the test can hardly be influenced anymore. When HTA analyses are performed earlier, during biomarker research and development, they may prevent further development of those biomarkers unlikely to ever provide sufficient added value to society, and rather facilitate translation of the promising ones. Early HTA is particularly relevant for the predictive biomarker field, as expensive medicines are under pressure and the need for biomarkers to guide their appropriate use is huge. Closer interaction between clinical researchers and HTA experts throughout the translational research process will ensure that available data and methodologies will be used most efficiently to facilitate biomarker translation.

Further research on predictive biomarkers for HDAC should focus on gathering data on TPs, prevalence, PPV, TRRs, utilities, and costs from the four ancillary studies to the ongoing RCT.

BackgroundWhile the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines advise exercise to reduce disease progression, little investment in promoting physical activity (PA) is made by health care authorities. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regular PA vs sedentary lifestyle in people with COPD in the UK.MethodsEfficacy, quality of life, and economic evidence on the PA effects in COPD patients were retrieved from literature to serve as input for a Markov microsimulation model comparing a COPD population performing PA vs a COPD population with sedentary lifestyle. The GOLD classification defined the model health states. For the base case, the cost of PA was estimated at zero, a lifetime horizon was used, and costs and effects were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were performed from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty around inputs and assumptions were explored via scenario and sensitivity analyses, including a cost threshold analysis. Outcomes were cost/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost/year gained.ResultsBased on our model, the effects of PA in the UK COPD population would be lower mortality (−6%), fewer hospitalizations (−2%), gains in years (+0.82) and QALYs (+0.66), and total cost savings of £2,568. The cost/QALY and cost/year gained were dominant. PA was cost-saving at costs <£35/month and cost-effective at cost <£202/month. The main model drivers were age and PA impact on death and hospital-treated exacerbations.ConclusionIncluding PA in the management of COPD leads to long-term clinical benefits. If the NHS promotes only exercise via medical advice, this would lead to health care cost savings. If the NHS chose to fund PA, it would still likely be cost-effective.