Background Nivolumab was the first programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate long-term survival benefit in a clinical trial setting for advanced melanoma patients. Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England. Methods A Markov state-transition model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus ipilimumab and dacarbazine for BRAF mutation-negative patients and versus ipilimumab, dabrafenib, and vemurafenib for BRAF mutation-positive patients. Covariate-adjusted parametric curves for time to progression, pre-progression survival, and post-progression survival were fitted based on patient-level data from two trials and long-term ipilimumab survival data. Indirect treatment comparisons between nivolumab, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine were informed by these covariate-adjusted parametric curves, controlling for differences in patient characteristics. Kaplan-Meier data from the literature were digitised and used to fit progression-free and overall survival curves for dabrafenib and vemurafenib. Patient utilities and resource use data were based on trial data or the literature. Patients are assumed to receive nivolumab until there is no further clinical benefit, assumed to be the first of progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or 2 years of treatment. Results Nivolumab is the most cost-effective treatment option in BRAF mutation-negative and mutation-positive patients, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £24,483 and £17,362 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The model results are most sensitive to assumptions regarding treatment duration for nivolumab and the parameters of the fitted parametric survival curves. Conclusions Nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment for advanced melanoma patients in England.
Background: The aim of this post hoc analysis of a large cohort study was to evaluate the association between night-time surgery and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (AEs) and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: LAS VEGAS (Local Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Surgery) was a prospective international 1-week study that enrolled adult patients undergoing surgical procedures with general anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. Surgeries were defined as occurring during 'daytime' when induction of anaesthesia was between 8:00 AM and 7:59 PM, and as 'night-time' when induction was between 8:00 PM and 7:59 AM. Results: Of 9861 included patients, 555 (5.6%) underwent surgery during night-time. The proportion of patients who developed intraoperative AEs was higher during night-time surgery in unmatched (43.6% vs 34.1%; P<0.001) and propensity-matched analyses (43.7% vs 36.8%; P¼0.029). PPCs also occurred more often in patients who underwent night-time surgery (14% vs 10%; P¼0.004) in an unmatched cohort analysis, although not in a propensity-matched analysis (13.8% vs 11.8%; P¼0.39). In a multivariable regression model, including patient characteristics and types of surgery and anaesthesia, night-time surgery was independently associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative AEs (odds ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.09e1.90; P¼0.01), but not with a higher incidence of PPCs (odds ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.89e1.90; P¼0.15). Conclusions: Intraoperative adverse events and postoperative pulmonary complications occurred more often in patients undergoing night-time surgery. Imbalances in patients' clinical characteristics, types of surgery, and intraoperative management at night-time partially explained the higher incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, but not the higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT01601223.
Background: An infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the obligatory aetiological factor for the development of cervical cancer. In Switzerland, the prevention strategy for cervical cancer is based on primary prevention via HPV vaccination and secondary prevention with an opportunistic screening programme for precancerous lesions. Vaccination is recommended to 11-26 years old male and female persons. The objective of the study was to assess the epidemiological impact on cervical cancer of switching from the currently implemented programme with the 4-valent vaccine to the 9-valent vaccine, in an 11-26 years old gender-neutral vaccination programme in Switzerland. Methods: A previously validated dynamic transmission model of HPV infections was adapted and calibrated to the Swiss setting assuming an 80% coverage rate in HPV-vaccination and lifelong vaccine type-specific protection. A gender-neutral vaccination programme (males and females) for 11-26 years old with a 9-valent HPV vaccine was compared with the current 11-26 years old gender-neutral 4-valent vaccination programme. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to test the impact of lower vaccination coverage rates and a shorter duration of protection on the model outcomes. Results: In Switzerland, a 9-valent gender-neutral vaccination programme would result in an additional prevention of 2979 cervical cancer cases, 13,862 CIN3 and 15,000 CIN2 cases, compared with the 4-valent gender-neutral vaccination programme over 100 years. These additional disease cases avoided would correspond to a 24, 36 and 48% cumulative incidence decrease in cervical cancer, CIN3 and CIN2 cases, respectively. It would also prevent additional 741 cervical cancer-related deaths over 100 years. A substantial additional reduction in cervical cancer and precancerous lesions burden is still observed when varying the vaccination coverage rate from 30 to 60% or reducing the duration of protection from lifelong to 20 years.
Recent advances in hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies have transformed the treatment landscape for this disease. However, efficacy of current treatments depends on HCV genotype and individual patient characteristics. This review aimed to appraise observational studies reporting epidemiological outcomes to characterize HCV genotype distribution in Europe, in the general HCV population and various subpopulations of interest. MEDLINE and EMBASE entries published between November 2008 and November 2013 were systematically searched. Studies were grouped according to the patient populations of interest: general HCV population, HCV-HIV co-infected patients, patients with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and liver transplant recipients. Thirty publications provided estimates of HCV genotype distribution in four distinct patient groups: general HCV population (n = 21), HCV-HIV co-infected patients (n = 6), liver transplant patients (n = 3), and patients with HCV-compensated cirrhosis (n = 1). Nationwide estimates of genotype distribution in the general HCV population were available for 10 countries, with genotypes 1 and 3 the most commonly reported. Romanian studies were found to have reported genotype 1 infections almost exclusively (98.0-99.8%). Considerable regional variation was reported in some countries (e.g., Italy), but not others (e.g., France). National and multi-national estimates for the HCV-HIV co-infected population suggested a different genotype distribution to that in the general HCV population. No studies reported nationwide genotype distribution in patients with advanced liver disease. Given the clinical importance of genotype in developing optimal HCV eradication strategies, further nationwide European studies are needed to fully characterize genotype distribution in both the general HCV population and in HCV subpopulations. J. Med. Virol. 88:2157-2169, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.