Cost-effectiveness of a multicancer early detection test in the US.

Objectives: Multicancer early detection (MCED) testing could result in earlier cancer diagnosis, thereby improving survival and reducing treatment costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of MCED testing plus usual care (UC) screening while accounting for the impact of clinical uncertainty and population heterogeneity for an MCED test with broad coverage of solid cancer incidence.

Study Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis of MCED testing plus UC vs UC alone in an adult population in the US.

The Potential Value-Based Price of a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Genomic Blood Test to Complement Current Single Cancer Screening in the USA.

Background: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing could increase detection of cancer at early stages, when survival outcomes are better and treatment costs are lower, but is expected to increase screening costs. This study modeled an MCED test for 19 solid cancers in a US population and estimated the potential value-based price (the maximum price to meet a given willingness to pay) of the MCED test plus current single cancer screening (usual care) compared to usual care alone from a third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.

Methods: A hybrid cohort-level state-transition and decision-tree model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of annual MCED testing between age 50 and 79 years.

Effectiveness of a Patient Support Program in Supporting Access to Therapy for Solid Tumor Malignancies.

Certain governmental agencies, patient advocacy organizations, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have implemented programs to assist patients in overcoming barriers to accessing healthcare. Recently, such programs have expanded their services, helping both uninsured and insured patients to navigate the complex healthcare system, and assisting with increasing out-of pocket costs and copays for the drugs. To better understand the effect of patient support programs on access to therapy for solid tumor malignancies, this study evaluated service use, case outcomes, and patient characteristics from a manufacturer-sponsored program in the United States.

Economic evaluation of azoles as primary prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in Spanish patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Even with introduction of oral triazole antifungal agents (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole) IFI-associated morbidity and mortality rates and economic burden remain high. Despite their proven efficacy, it is currently unknown which is the most cost-effective antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) agent.

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review.

Cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay for the diagnosis of melanoma in the USA.

Objective: The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay in melanoma diagnosis in the USA.

Method: A model was developed simulating the addition of FISH to the diagnosis of suspected melanoma. A decision analytic module simulated diagnosis using microscopic assessment alone versus addition of FISH (sensitivity: 92%; specificity: 94%).