Search Results (2)

Background: The evidence base of tisagenlecleucel is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel. To conduct expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses. Study Design: A three-state partitioned survival model. A short-term decision tree partitioned patients in the tisagenlecleucel arm according to infusion status. Survival was extrapolated to 5 years; general population mortality with a standardised mortality ratio was then applied. EVPI and EVPPI were scaled up to population according to the incidence of the decision. Setting: Irish healthcare payer. Participants: Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL). Interventions: Tisagenlecleucel versus Salvage Chemotherapy (with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplant). Main Outcome Measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Population EVPI and EVPPI. Results: At list prices, the ICER was €119,509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (incremental costs €218,092; incremental QALYs 1.82). Probability of cost-effectiveness, at a €45,000 per QALY threshold, was 0%. Population EVPI was €0.00. Population EVPI, at the price of tisagenlecleucel that reduced the ICER to €45,000 per QALY, was €3,989,438. Here, survival analysis had the highest population EVPPI (€1,128,053). Conclusion: Tisagenlecleucel is not cost-effective, versus salvage chemotherapy (with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplant), for R/R DLBCL in Ireland. At list prices, further research to decrease decision uncertainty may not be of value. Full article

SARS-CoV-2 continues to widely circulate in populations globally. Underdetection is acknowledged and is problematic when attempting to capture the true prevalence. Seroprevalence studies, where blood samples from a population sample are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that react to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, are a common method for estimating the proportion of people previously infected with the virus in a given population. However, obtaining reliable estimates from seroprevalence studies is challenging for a number of reasons, and the uncertainty in the results is often overlooked by scientists, policy makers, and the media. This paper reviews the methodological issues that arise in designing these studies, and the main sources of uncertainty that affect the results. We discuss the choice of study population, recruitment of subjects, uncertainty surrounding the accuracy of antibody tests, and the relationship between antibodies and infection over time. Understanding these issues can help the reader to interpret and critically evaluate the results of seroprevalence studies. Full article