Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiac Indications in Adults: A Health Technology Assessment.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy used to stabilize patients with hemodynamic compromise such as refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. When used for cardiac arrest, ECMO is also known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). We conducted a health technology assessment of venoarterial ECMO for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with cardiac arrest refractory to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical management (i.e., drugs, mechanical support such as intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist devices). Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO for these indications, and patient preferences and values. We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool for systematic reviews and the Risk of Bias Among Nonrandomized Trials (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding ECMO in Ontario for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. To contextualize the potential value of ECMO for cardiac indications, we spoke with patients and caregivers with direct experience with the procedure. We included one systematic review (with 13 observational studies) and two additional observational studies in the clinical review. Compared with traditional CPR for patients with refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day survival (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.54; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.30) (GRADE: Very Low) and significantly improved long-term survival (pooled RR 2.17; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.44) (GRADE: Low). Overall, ECPR was associated with significantly improved 30-day favourable neurological outcome in patients with refractory cardiac arrest compared with traditional CPR; pooled RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.16) (GRADE: Very Low). For patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO was associated with a significant improvement in 30-day survival compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (pooled RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.61) (GRADE: Very Low). Compared with temporary percutaneous ventricular assist devices, ECMO was not associated with improved survival (pooled risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30) (GRADE: Very Low).We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR compared with conventional CPR is $18,722 and $28,792 per life-year gained (LYG) for in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, respectively. We estimated the probability of ECPR being cost-effective versus conventional CPR is 93% and 60% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per LYG for in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, respectively. We estimate that publicly funding ECMO in Ontario over the next 5 years would result in additional total costs of $1,673,811 for cardiogenic shock (treating 314 people), $2,195,517 for in-hospital cardiac arrest (treating 126 people), and $3,762,117 for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (treating 247 people).The eight patients and family members with whom we spoke had limited ability to assess the impact of ECMO or report their impressions because of their critical medical situations when they encountered the procedure. All had been in hospital with acute hemodynamic instability. In the decision to receive the procedure, participants generally relied on the expertise and judgment of physicians. For adults treated for refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR may improve survival and likely improves long-term neurological outcomes compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For patients treated for cardiogenic shock, ECMO may improve 30-day survival compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, but there is considerable uncertainty.For adults with refractory cardiac arrest, ECPR may be cost-effective compared with conventional CPR. We estimate that publicly funding ECMO for people with cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock in Ontario over the next 5 years would cost about $845,000 to $2.2 million per year.People with experience of ECMO for cardiac indications viewed it as a life-saving device and expressed gratitude that it was available and able to help stabilize their acute medical condition.

Ontario Health (Quality) 《-》

Multi-gene Pharmacogenomic Testing That Includes Decision-Support Tools to Guide Medication Selection for Major Depression: A Health Technology Assessment.

Major depression is a substantial public health concern that can affect personal relationships, reduce people's ability to go to school or work, and lead to social isolation. Multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools can help predict which depression medications and dosages are most likely to result in a strong response to treatment or to have the lowest risk of adverse events on the basis of people's genes.We conducted a health technology assessment of multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools for people with major depression. Our assessment evaluated effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing, and patient preferences and values. We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized studies (RoBANS) and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.We performed a systematic literature search of the economic evidence to review published cost-effectiveness studies on multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes a decision-support tool in people with major depression. We developed a state-transition model and conducted a probabilistic analysis to determine the incremental cost of multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing versus treatment as usual per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for people with major depression who had inadequate response to one or more antidepressant medications. In the reference case (with GeneSight-guided care), we considered a 1-year time horizon with an Ontario Ministry of Health perspective. We also estimated the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing for people with major depression in Ontario.To contextualize the potential value of multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools, we spoke with people who have major depression and their families. We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review that evaluated six multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests. Although all tests included decision-support tools, they otherwise differed greatly, as did study design, populations included in studies, and outcomes reported. Little or no improvement was observed on change in HAM-D17 depression score compared with treatment as usual for any test evaluated (GRADE: Low-Very Low). GeneSight- and NeuroIDgenetix-guided medication selection led to statistically significant improvements in response (GRADE: Low-Very Low) and remission (GRADE: Low-Very Low), while treatment guided by CNSdose led to significant improvement in remission rates (GRADE: Low), but the study did not report on response. Results were inconsistent and uncertain for the impact of Neuropharmagen, and no significant improvement was observed for Genecept or another unspecified test for either response or remission (GRADE: Low-Very Low). Neuropharmagen may reduce adverse events and CNSDose may reduce intolerability to medication, while no difference was observed in adverse events with GeneSight, Genecept, or another unspecified test (GRADE: Moderate-Very Low). No studies reported data on suicide, treatment adherence, relapse, recovery, or recurrence of depression symptoms.Our review included four model-based economic studies and found that multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing was associated with greater effectiveness and cost savings than treatment as usual, over long-term (i.e., 3-,5-year and lifetime) time horizons. Since none of the included studies was fully applicable to the Ontario health care system, we conducted a primary economic evaluation.Our reference case analysis over the 1-year time horizon found that multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing (with GeneSight) was associated with additional QALYs (0.03, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.005; 0.072) and additional costs ($1,906, 95% Crl: $688; $3,360). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $60,564 per QALY gained. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective (vs. treatment as usual) was 36.8% at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per QALY (i.e., moderately likely not to be cost-effective), rising to 70.7% at a willingness-to-pay amount of $100,000 per QALY (i.e., moderately likely to be cost-effective). Evidence informing economic modeling of the reference case with GeneSight and other multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests was of low to very low quality, implying considerable uncertainty or low confidence in the effectiveness estimates. The price of the test, efficacy of the intervention on remission, time horizon, and analytic perspective were major determinants of the cost-effectiveness results. If the test price were assumed to be $2,162 (compared with $2,500 in the reference case), the intervention would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per QALY; moreover, if the price decreased to $595, the intervention would be cost saving (or dominant) compared with treatment as usual.At an increasing uptake of 1% per year and a test price of $2,500, the annual budget impact of publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing in Ontario over the next 5 years ranged from an additional $3.5 million in year 1 (at uptake of 1%) to $16.8 million in year 5. The 5-year budget impact was estimated at about $52 million.People with major depression and caregivers generally supported multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing because they believed it could provide guidance that fit their values. They hoped such guidance would speed symptom relief, would reduce side effects and help inform their medication choices. Some patients expressed concerns over maintaining confidentiality of test results and the possibility that physicians would sacrifice patient-centred care to follow pharmacogenomic guidance. Multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools to guide medication selection for depression varies widely. Differences between individual tests must be considered, as clinical utility observed with one test might not apply to other tests. Overall, effectiveness was inconsistent among the six multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests we identified. Multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests may result in little or no difference in improvement in depression scores compared with treatment as usual, but some tests may improve response to treatment or remission from depression. The impact on adverse events is uncertain. The evidence, however, is uncertain, and therefore our confidence that these observed effects reflect the true effects is low to very low.For the management of major depression in people who had inadequate response to at least one medication, some multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests that include decision support tools are associated with additional costs and QALYs over the 1-year time horizon, and maybe be cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay amount of $100,000 per QALY. Publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing in Ontario would result in additional annual costs of between $3.5 million and $16.8 million, with a total budget impact of about $52 million over the next 5 years.People with major depression and caregivers generally supported multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing because they believed it could provide guidance that fit their values. They hoped such guidance would speed symptom relief, would reduce side and help inform their medication choices. Some patients expressed concerns over maintaining confidentiality of test results and the possibility that physicians would sacrifice patient-centred care to follow pharmacogenomic guidance.

Ontario Health (Quality) 《-》

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for emergency cardiac support.

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may provide benefit to patients in refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. We aim to summarize our center's 6-year experience with resuscitative VA-ECMO. A retrospective medical record review (April 2009 to 2015) was performed on consecutive non-cardiotomy patients who were managed with VA-ECMO due to refractory in- or out-of-hospital cardiac (IHCA/OHCA) arrest (E-CPR) or refractory cardiogenic shock (E-CS) with or without preceding cardiac arrest. Our primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and good neurological status (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2). There were a total of 22 patients who met inclusion criteria of whom 9 received E-CPR (8 IHCA, 1 OHCA) and 13 received E-CS. The median age for E-CPR patients was 52 [IQR 45, 58] years, and 54 [IQR 38, 64] years for E-CS patients. Cardiac arrest duration was 70.33 (SD 39.56) min for the E-CPR patients, and 24.67 (SD 26.73) min for the 9 patients treated with E-CS who had previously arrested. Initial cardiac arrest rhythms were pulseless electrical activity (39%), ventricular fibrillation (33%), or ventricular tachycardia (28%). A total of 18/22 patients were successfully weaned from VA-ECMO (78%); 16 patients survived to hospital discharge (73%) with 15 in good neurological condition. The initiation of VA-ECMO at our center for treatment of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock yielded a high proportion of survivors and favorable neurological outcomes.

Sun T ，Guy A ，Sidhu A ，Finlayson G ，Grunau B ，Ding L ，Harle S ，Dewar L ，Cook R ，Kanji HD ... -  《-》

Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.

Pain is a common and very distressing symptom for adults and children with cancer. Compared with other routes of delivery, infusing pain medication directly into the intrathecal space around the spinal cord may reduce the incidence of systemic side effects and allow for more rapid and effective pain relief. We conducted a health technology assessment of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) for adults and children with cancer pain, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding IDDSs, patient preferences and values, and ethical considerations. We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews, and we selected and reported results from 2 recent reviews that were relevant to our research questions. We complemented the chosen systematic reviews with a literature search to identify primary studies published after December 2020. We used the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool to assess the risk of bias of each included systematic review. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing IDDSs with standard care (i.e., non-IDDS methods of pain management) from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding IDDSs in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of IDDSs, we spoke with patients with cancer pain and with caregivers of patients with cancer pain. We explored ethical considerations from a review of published literature on the use of IDDSs for the management of cancer pain in adults and children as well as a review of the other components of this health technology assessment to identify ethical considerations relevant to the Ontario context. We included 2 systematic reviews (1 on adults and 1 on children) in the clinical evidence review. In adults with cancer pain who have a life expectancy greater than 6 months, intrathecal drug delivery was associated with a significant reduction in pain intensity compared with before implantation up to a 1-year follow-up (GRADE: Moderate to Low). Improved pain management appeared to be maintained beyond a 4-week follow-up. IDDSs likely decrease the use of systemic opioids (GRADE: Moderate to Low). They may also improve health-related quality of life (GRADE: Low), functional outcomes (GRADE: Low), and survival (GRADE: Low to Very low). In children with cancer pain, IDDSs may reduce pain intensity, improve functional outcomes, and improve survival, but the evidence is very uncertain (all GRADEs: Very low). IDDS implantation carries certain rare risks related to mechanical errors, drug-related side effects, and surgical complications. There are inherent limitations in conducting research in patients with refractory cancer pain; therefore, it is unlikely that higher-quality evidence will emerge in the next few years. Our primary economic evaluation found that IDDSs are more effective and more costly than standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IDDSs compared with standard care is $57,314 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The probability of IDDSs being cost-effective versus standard care is 43.46% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained and 72.54% at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY gained. Publicly funding IDDSs in Ontario would cost an additional $0.27 million per year, for a total of $1.34 million over the next 5 years. The patients with cancer pain and caregivers with whom we spoke described the debilitating nature of cancer pain and the difficulty of finding effective pain management options. Patients with experience of an IDDS spoke of its effectiveness and its positive impact on their quality of life and mental health. Implementing IDDSs for patients with cancer pain raises several ethical and equity considerations related to the experiences and management of cancer pain, how limitations in evidence may entail uncertainties in clinical and health system decision-making, as well as clinical, geographic, and health system access barriers. Intrathecal drug delivery likely reduces pain intensity and decreases the use of systemic opioids in adults with cancer pain who have a life expectancy greater than 6 months. It may also improve health-related quality of life, functional outcomes, and survival, although the evidence for survival is very uncertain. The clinical evidence in children with cancer pain is very uncertain. IDDS implantation is reasonably safe. Intrathecal drug delivery is more effective and more costly than standard care. We estimate that funding IDDSs in Ontario will result in additional costs of $0.27 million per year, for a total of $1.34 million over the next 5 years. Considerations related to funding and implementing IDDSs for patients with cancer pain in Ontario will require explicit and focused attention to considerations of equity and access in the diagnosis and management of cancer pain and in the use, clinical uptake, and delivery of IDDS pain management.

Ontario Health 《-》

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis at Low Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment.

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure. We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of TAVI for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI, and patient preferences and values. We used the 2016 Health Quality Ontario HTA on TAVI2 as a source of eligible studies and performed a systematic literature search for studies published since the 2016 review. Eligible primary studies identified both through the 2016 HTA and through our complementary literature search were used in a de novo analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.An applicable, previously conducted cost-effectiveness analysis was available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at low surgical risk in Ontario. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients for TAVI. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a review to evaluate the qualitative literature on patient and provider preferences and values for TAVI. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI, we spoke with people with severe aortic valve stenosis. We identified two randomized controlled trials that compared TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Both studies have an ongoing follow-up of 10 years, but 1-year and limited 2-year follow-up results are currently available. At 30 days, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a slightly lower risk of mortality (risk difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5% to -0.1%, GRADE: Moderate) and disabling stroke (risk difference -0.8%, 95% CI -1.8% to -0.2%, GRADE: Moderate), and resulted in more patients with symptom improvement (risk difference 11.8%, 95% CI 8.2% to 15.5%, GRADE: High) and in a greater improvement in quality of life (GRADE: High). At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality (GRADE: Low), although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke (GRADE: Moderate). Both TAVI and SAVR resulted in a similar improvement in symptoms and quality of life at 1 year (GRADE: Moderate). Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others.Device-related costs for TAVI (about $25,000) are higher than for SAVR (about $6,000). A published cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from an Ontario Ministry of Health perspective showed TAVI to be more expensive and, on average, slightly more effective (i.e., it was associated with more quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than SAVR. Compared with SAVR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $27,196 per QALY and $59,641 per QALY for balloon-expandable and self-expanding TAVI, respectively. Balloon-expandable TAVI was less costly (by $2,330 on average) and slightly more effective (by 0.02 QALY on average) than self-expanding TAVI. Among the three interventions, balloon-expandable TAVI had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It was the preferred option in 53% and 59% of model iterations, at willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively. Self-expanding TAVI was preferred in less than 10% of iterations. The budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario is estimated to be an additional $5 to $8 million each year for the next 5 years. The budget impact could be significantly reduced with reductions in the device price.We did not find any quantitative or qualitative evidence on patient preferences and values specific to the low-risk surgical group. Among a mixed or generally high-risk and population, people typically preferred the less invasive nature and the faster recovery time of TAVI compared with SAVR, and people were satisfied with the TAVI procedure. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk and their caregivers perceived that TAVI minimized pain and recovery time. Most patients who had TAVI returned to their usual activities more quickly than they would have if they had had SAVR. Our direct patient and caregiver consultations indicated a preference for TAVI over SAVR. Both TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR resulted in improved patient symptoms and quality of life during the 1 year of follow-up. The TAVI procedure is less invasive and resulted in greater symptom improvement and quality of life than SAVR 30 days after surgery. The TAVI procedure also resulted in a small improvement in mortality and disabling stroke at 30 days. At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality, although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke. According to the study authors, longer follow-up is needed to better understand how long TAVI valves last and to draw definitive conclusions on the long-term outcomes of TAVI compared with SAVR beyond 1 year.The TAVI procedure might be cost-effective for patients at low surgical risk; however, there is some uncertainty in this result. We estimated that the additional cost to provide public funding for TAVI in people with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk would range from about $5 million to $8 million over the next 5 years.Among a mixed or generally high-risk population, people typically preferred the less invasive nature and the faster recovery time of TAVI compared with SAVR.

Ontario Health (Quality) 《-》