This study systematically reviews costing studies of seasonal influenza-like illness (ILI) in high-income countries. Existing reviews on the economic impact of ILI do not report information on drug consumption and its costs, nor do they provide data on the overall cost per episode. The PRISMA-P checklist was used to design the research protocol. Studies included were cost of illness analysis (COI) and modeling studies that estimated the cost of ILI episodes. Records were searched from January 2000 to December 2016 in electronic bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Disseminations of the University of York, and Google scholar. References from the included studies were hand-searched for completion. Abstract screening, full-text analysis and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. A standardized, pre-piloted form was used for data extraction. All costs were converted to 2015 US$ Purchasing Power Parities. The literature search identified 5,104 records. After abstract and title screening, 76 studies were analyzed full-text and 27 studies were finally included in the review. Full estimates of the cost per episode range from US$19 in Korea to US$323 in Germany. Particularly, the cost per episode of laboratory confirmed influenza cases was estimated between US$64 and US$73. Inpatient and outpatient services account for the majority of the costs. Differences in the estimates may reflect country-specific characteristics, as well as other study-specific features including study design, identification strategy of ILI cases, study populations and types of costs included in the analysis. Children usually register higher costs, whereas evidence for the elderly is less conclusive. Patients risk-profile, co-morbidities and complications are the other important cost-drivers. None of the papers considered appropriateness in resource use (e.g. abuse of antibiotics). Despite cost of illness studies have ultimately a descriptive role, evidence on (in)appropriateness is useful for policy-makers.

Objectives This study aimed to compare the costs of a next-generation sequencing-based (NGS-based) panel testing strategy to those of a single-gene testing-based (SGT-based) strategy, considering different scenarios of clinical practice evolution. Methods Three Italian hospitals were analysed, and four different testing pathways (paths 1, 2, 3, and 4) were identified: two for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients and two for unresectable metastatic colon-rectal cancer (mCRC) patients. For each path, we explored four scenarios considering the current clinical practice and its expected evolution. The 16 testing cases (4 scenarios × 4 paths) were then compared in terms of differential costs between the NGS-based and SGT-based approaches considering personnel, consumables, equipment, and overhead costs. Break-even and sensitivity analyses were performed. Data gathering, aimed at identifying the hospital setup, was performed through a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the professionals involved in testing activities. Results The NGS-based strategy was found to be a cost-saving alternative to the SGT-based strategy in 15 of the 16 testing cases. The break-even threshold, the minimum number of patients required to make the NGS-based approach less costly than the SGT-based approach, varied across the testing cases depending on molecular alterations tested, techniques adopted, and specific costs. The analysis found the NGS-based approach to be less costly than the SGT-based approach in nine of the 16 testing cases at any volume of tests performed; in six cases, the NGS-based approach was found to be less costly above a threshold (and in one case, it was found to be always more expensive). Savings obtained using an NGS-based approach ranged from €30 to €1249 per patient; in the unique testing case where NGS was more costly, the additional cost per patient was €25. Conclusions An NGS-based approach may be less costly than an SGT-based approach; also, generated savings increase with the number of patients and different molecular alterations tested.

Background: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. Results: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. Conclusions: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

PURPOSE: The investigation of multiple molecular targets with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has entered clinical practice in oncology, yielding to a paradigm shift from the histology-centric approach to the mutational model for personalized treatment. Accordingly, most of the drugs recently approved in oncology are coupled to specific biomarkers. One potential tool for implementing the mutational model of precision oncology in daily practice is represented by the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary team whereby molecular pathologists, biologists, bioinformaticians, geneticists, medical oncologists, and pharmacists cooperate to generate, interpret, and match molecular data with personalized treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since May 2020, the institutional MTB set at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan met weekly via teleconference to discuss molecular data and potential therapeutic options for patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. RESULTS: Up to October 2021, among 1,996 patients evaluated, we identified >10,000 variants, 43.2% of which were functionally relevant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic). On the basis of functionally relevant variants, 711 patients (35.6%) were potentially eligible to targeted therapy according to European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets tiers, and 9.4% received a personalized treatment. Overall, larger NGS panels (containing >50 genes) significantly outperformed small panels (up to 50 genes) in detecting actionable gene targets across different tumor types. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data provide evidence that MTB is a valuable tool for matching NGS data with targeted treatments, eventually implementing precision oncology in clinical practice.

CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a potentially transformative immunotherapy for certain B-cell malignancies including relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Unhindered and appropriate access for eligible patients is essential to enable optimal outcomes and depends on effective interplay of stakeholders and processes along the patient’s therapeutic journey. In Italy, CAR T-cell therapies have been awarded innovation status by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and were integrated into routine patient care under specific criteria. However, our analysis indicates that fewer than one in five DLBCL patients eligible under the EMA authorization, or around one in three DLBCL patients eligible under the AIFA criteria, received treatment with a licensed CAR T-cell therapy product in 2020. This publication describes key patient access barriers to CAR T-cell therapies in Italy and provides recommendations on potential solutions at the health system level.