Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. RESULTS: The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. FUTURE WORK: Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth, may come through the gum (erupt) without any problems, usually during young adulthood (aged 18­24 years). However, in some cases they are unable to erupt because they are poorly aligned or obstructed by other teeth, gums or bone. They are then referred to as 'impacted'. Historically, dentists often recommended that these teeth be removed, so as not to cause problems later in life. This is referred to as 'prophylactic' removal. In 2000, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviewed this practice and recommended that these teeth should not be removed if they are not bothersome to the person. Many dentists and oral surgeons have disagreed with this decision, believing that it is more difficult to remove these teeth later in life, and that there are more complications for the patient if they are removed later in life. Our review group carried out a systematic review of the available clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of the prophylactic removal of impacted third molars. The review identified four clinical studies, none of which provided strong evidence for or against the prophylactic removal of these teeth. These findings are similar to those of nine previous reviews. There is also very little research reported that relates to the cost-effectiveness of the procedure, with only three studies identified. With the available evidence on the rates of extraction and the symptoms experienced by people who keep their impacted mandibular third molar, we built an exploratory economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of recommending prophylactic removal compared with that of recommending watchful waiting. Results from the model suggested that a prophylactic removal strategy costs more than a watchful waiting strategy, but leads to improvements in quality of life. When the costs and quality-of-life measures that are associated with the two strategies are compared, the resulting statistic is £11,741 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, which would probably be good value for money for the NHS.

Engaging with stakeholders to inform the development of a decision-support tool for the NHS health check programme: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check Programme is a risk-reduction programme offered to all adults in England aged 40-74 years. Previous studies mainly focused on patient perspectives and programme delivery; however, delivery varies, and costs are substantial. We were therefore working with key stakeholders to develop and co-produce an NHS Health Check Programme modelling tool (workHORSE) for commissioners to quantify local effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Here we report on Workshop 1, which specifically aimed to facilitate engagement with stakeholders; develop a shared understanding of current Health Check implementation; identify what is working well, less well, and future hopes; and explore features to include in the tool. METHODS: This qualitative study identified key stakeholders across the UK via networking and snowball techniques. The stakeholders spanned local organisations (NHS commissioners, GPs, and academics), third sector and national organisations (Public Health England and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). We used the validated Hovmand "group model building" approach to engage stakeholders in a series of pre-piloted, structured, small group exercises. We then used Framework Analysis to analyse responses. RESULTS: Fifteen stakeholders participated in workshop 1. Stakeholders identified continued financial and political support for the NHS Health Check Programme. However, many stakeholders highlighted issues concerning lack of data on processes and outcomes, variability in quality of delivery, and suboptimal public engagement. Stakeholders' hopes included maximising coverage, uptake, and referrals, and producing additional evidence on population health, equity, and economic impacts. Key model suggestions focused on developing good-practice template scenarios, analysis of broader prevention activities at local level, accessible local data, broader economic perspectives, and fit-for-purpose outputs. CONCLUSIONS: A shared understanding of current implementations of the NHS Health Check Programme was developed. Stakeholders demonstrated their commitment to the NHS Health Check Programme whilst highlighting the perceived requirements for enhancing the service and discussed how the modelling tool could be instrumental in this process. These suggestions for improvement informed subsequent workshops and model development.

Toward a theory-led metaframework for considering socioeconomic health inequalities within systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a theory-led framework to inform reviewers' understanding of what, how, and why health care interventions may lead to differential effects across socioeconomic groups. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A metaframework approach combined two theoretical perspectives (socioeconomic health inequalities and complex interventions) into a single framework to inform socioeconomic health inequality considerations in systematic reviews. RESULTS: Four theories relating to complexity within systematic reviews and 16 health inequalities intervention theories informed the development of a metaframework. Factors relating to the type of intervention, implementation, context, participant response, and mechanisms associated with differential effects across socioeconomic groups were identified. The metaframework can inform; reviewer discussions around how socioeconomic status (SES) can moderate intervention effectiveness during question formulation, approaches to data extraction and help identify a priori analysis considerations. CONCLUSION: The metaframework offers a transparent, practical, theory-led approach to inform a program theory for what, how, and why interventions work for different SES groups in systematic reviews. It can enhance existing guidance on conducting systematic reviews that consider health inequalities, increase awareness of how SES can moderate intervention effectiveness, and encourage a greater engagement with theory throughout the review process.

What Is the Evidence from Past National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Single-Technology Appraisals Regarding Company Submissions with Base-Case Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios of Less Than £10,000/QALY?

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recently proposed that company submissions with a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than £10,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) might be eligible for a "fast-track" appraisal. OBJECTIVES: To explore outcomes relating to previously conducted single-technology appraisals (STAs) with base-case ICERs of less than £10,000/QALY. METHODS: All STAs with published guidance from 2009 to 2016 were included; those with company base-case ICERs of less than £10,000/QALY were identified and analyzed. A secondary analysis was also conducted for those with a company base-case ICER of £10,000 to £15,000/QALY. Relevant data were extracted and presented in a narrative and in tables. RESULTS: In total, 15% (26 of 171) of STAs included a company submission with a base-case ICER of less than £10,000/QALY. Of these, 73% (19 of 26) were given positive recommendations after the first Appraisal Committee (AC) meeting, whereas 27% (7 of 26) were initially given a Minded No before receiving a positive recommendation in the final appraisal determination, albeit with restricted recommendations for three technologies. Five STAs had company base-case ICERs of £10,000 to £15,000/QALY and all received a positive recommendation after the first AC meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Most previous STAs with a company base-case ICER of £10,000 or even £15,000/QALY received a positive recommendation after the first AC meeting, but a number of them proved more complicated and required detailed appraisal, which influenced the final recommendation. This finding might have implications for the proposed fast-track process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of automated tests for cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to determine whether automated computerised tests accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment. METHODS: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Institute for Scientific Information, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) were searched from January 2005 to August 2015 to identify papers for inclusion. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of automated computerised tests for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia against a reference standard were included. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Sixteen studies assessing 11 diagnostic tools for MCI and early dementia were included. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease and response to treatment. The overall quality of the studies was good. However, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that statistical analysis was not possible. CONCLUSION: Some tests have shown promising results for identifying MCI and early dementia. However, concerns over small sample sizes, lack of replicability of studies, and lack of evidence available make it difficult to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing, monitoring progression, and treatment response for MCI and early dementia. Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia.

Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic review guidance recommends the use of programme theory to inform considerations of if and how healthcare interventions may work differently across socio-economic status (SES) groups. This study aimed to address the lack of detail on how reviewers operationalise this in practice. METHODS: A methodological systematic review was undertaken to assess if, how and the extent to which systematic reviewers operationalise the guidance on the use of programme theory in considerations of socio-economic inequalities in health. Multiple databases were searched from January 2013 to May 2016. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of an intervention and included data on SES. Two reviewers independently screened all studies, undertook quality assessment and extracted data. A narrative approach to synthesis was adopted. RESULTS: A total of 37 systematic reviews were included, 10 of which were explicit in the use of terminology for 'programme theory'. Twenty-nine studies used programme theory to inform both their a priori assumptions and explain their review findings. Of these, 22 incorporated considerations of both what and how interventions do/do not work in SES groups to both predict and explain their review findings. Thirteen studies acknowledged 24 unique theoretical references to support their assumptions of what or how interventions may have different effects in SES groups. Most reviewers used supplementary evidence to support their considerations of differential effectiveness. The majority of authors outlined a programme theory in the "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections of the review to inform their assumptions or provide explanations of what or how interventions may result in differential effects within or across SES groups. About a third of reviews used programme theory to inform the review analysis and/or synthesis. Few authors used programme theory to inform their inclusion criteria, data extraction or quality assessment. Twenty-one studies tested their a priori programme theory. CONCLUSIONS: The use of programme theory to inform considerations of if, what and how interventions lead to differential effects on health in different SES groups in the systematic review process is not yet widely adopted, is used implicitly, is often fragmented and is not implemented in a systematic way.

Automated tests for diagnosing and monitoring cognitive impairment: a diagnostic accuracy review.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a growing public health concern, and is one of the most distinctive characteristics of all dementias. The timely recognition of dementia syndromes can be beneficial, as some causes of dementia are treatable and are fully or partially reversible. Several automated cognitive assessment tools for assessing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia are now available. Proponents of these tests cite as benefits the tests' repeatability and robustness and the saving of clinicians' time. However, the use of these tools to diagnose and/or monitor progressive cognitive impairment or response to treatment has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine whether or not automated computerised tests could accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment in MCI and dementia and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science and PsycINFO), plus ProQuest, were searched from 2005 to August 2015. The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Trial and research registers were searched for ongoing studies and reviews. A second search was run to identify individual test costs and acquisition costs for the various tools identified in the review. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias by one reviewer and independently checked for accuracy by a second. The results of the data extraction and quality assessment for each study are presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. RESULTS: The electronic searching of databases, including ProQuest, resulted in 13,542 unique citations. The titles and abstracts of these were screened and 399 articles were shortlisted for full-text assessment. Sixteen studies were included in the diagnostic accuracy review. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease. Eleven automated computerised tests were assessed in the 16 included studies. The overall quality of the studies was good; however, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that meaningful synthesis or statistical analysis was not possible. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this review is the substantial heterogeneity of the tests assessed in the included studies. As a result, no meta-analyses could be undertaken. CONCLUSION: The quantity of information available is insufficient to be able to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing and monitoring MCI and early dementia progression. The value of these tests also depends on the costs of acquisition, training, administration and scoring. FUTURE WORK: Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests that are used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia. Additionally, the costs associated with acquiring and using these tests in clinical practice should be estimated. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025410. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A web resource for mining HLA associations with adverse drug reactions: HLA-ADR.

Human leukocyte antigens (HLA) are an important family of genes involved in the immune system. Their primary function is to allow the host immune system to be able to distinguish between self and non-self peptides-e.g. derived from invading pathogens. However, these genes have also been implicated in immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (ADRs), presenting a problem to patients, clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. We have previously developed the Allele Frequency Net Database (AFND) that captures the allelic and haplotype frequencies for these HLA genes across many healthy populations from around the world. Here, we report the development and release of the HLA-ADR database that captures data from publications where HLA alleles and haplotypes have been associated with ADRs (e.g. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis and drug-induced liver injury). HLA-ADR was created by using data obtained through systematic review of the literature and semi-automated literature mining. The database also draws on data already present in AFND allowing users to compare and analyze allele frequencies in both ADR patients and healthy populations. The HLA-ADR database provides clinicians and researchers with a centralized resource from which to investigate immune-mediated ADRs.Database URL: http://www.allelefrequencies.net/hla-adr/.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. RESULTS: Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. LIMITATIONS: There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered. REVIEW METHODS: Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained). RESULTS: Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC. CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK: The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Differences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: There is no Spanish Government agency resembling the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (UK) that carries out a centralised evaluation and makes decisions about funding. Therefore, we aim to assess the differences between NICE and the Spanish bodies in terms of their respective processes. We compare the decisions concerning cancer drugs in the assessments made by NICE/Single Technology Appraisal with assessments made by MADRE methodology. METHODS: We included all cancer drugs assessed by NICE and all MADRE reports made using a shared reports process (GENESIS) and reports from Catalonia (CAMDHA) and Andalucía (GFTHA). We compared the number of drugs assessed, the decisions taken by NICE and Spanish organizations and timelines. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and December 2013 NICE appraised 24 cancer drugs. In Spain, 44 reports were produced using MADRE methodology. For the 14 drugs assessed by both NICE and Spanish bodies, NICE rejected a high proportion of the drugs (50% versus 26%). GENESIS, with a median of 8 months, made decisions more quickly than NICE (13.5 months) and GFTHA (17 months). The slowest organisation was CAMDHA (24.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: More drugs are assessed in Spain than by NICE because there are more organisations in Spain doing this work and their processes are simpler. NICE rejects more drugs as it uses cost-effectiveness thresholds that lead to a 'not-recommended' decision, and Spanish bodies recommend cancer drugs for subgroups of patients where better results can be obtained. Timelines are better for Spanish Committees, probably because of the greater number of steps in the appraisal process by NICE.

Dabrafenib for Treating Unresectable, Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of dabrafenib, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of dabrafenib for the treatment of unresectable, advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma in accordance with the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarizes the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) final decision in October 2014. The clinical evidence for dabrafenib was derived from an ongoing phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre clinical trial (BREAK-3) involving 230 patients randomized 2:1 to receive either dabrafenib or dacarbazine. A significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS) was reported in the dabrafenib arm compared with dacarbazine. Vemurafenib is considered a more appropriate comparator than is dacarbazine. The clinical evidence for vemurafenib was derived from a completed phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre clinical trial (BRIM-3) involving 675 patients randomized 1:1 to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine. A significant improvement in median PFS and OS was reported in the vemurafenib arm compared with dacarbazine. As there is no direct evidence comparing dabrafenib versus vemurafenib, the company presented an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that demonstrated no statistical differences between dabrafenib and vemurafenib for PFS or OS. The ERG expressed concerns with the ITC, mainly in relation to the validity of the assumptions underpinning the methodology; the ERG concluded this resulted in findings that are unlikely to be robust or reliable. Dabrafenib and vemurafenib are both available to patients treated by the National Health Service (NHS) in England via a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) in which the costs of the drugs are discounted. Using these discounted costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) generated by the company were £60,980 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and £11,046 per QALY gained for dabrafenib versus vemurafenib. The ERG considered the economic model structure developed by the company to derive the ICERs to be overly complex and based on unsubstantiated assumptions, most importantly in relation to the projection of OS. Applying the latest OS data from BREAK-3 to a less complex model structure increased the estimated ICER for dabrafenib compared with dacarbazine from £60,980 to £112,727 per QALY gained. Since the results from the ITC were considered by the ERG to be neither reliable nor robust, the ERG also considered a cost-effectiveness comparison to be inappropriate due to a lack of meaningful or reliable data. In spite of limitations in the data, the AC took the view that dabrafenib and vemurafenib were "likely" of similar clinical effectiveness. Since the overall costs of these two drugs were similar, the AC recommended the use of dabrafenib in patients with unresectable, advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments currently licensed in Europe and recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the first-line treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2001 to 2010 was carried out. Relative treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using standard meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison methodology. A total of 23 RCTs were included: 18 trials compared platinum-based chemotherapy, two compared pemetrexed and three compared gefitinib. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between any of the four third-generation chemotherapy regimens. There is statistically significant evidence that pemetrexed+platinum increases OS compared with gemcitabine+platinum. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between gefitinib and docetaxel+platinum or between gefitinib and paclitaxel+platinum. There is a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib compared with docetaxel+platinum and gefitinib compared with paclitaxel+platinum. Due to reduced generic pricing, third-generation chemotherapy regimens (except vinorelbine) are still competitive options for most patients. This research provides a comprehensive evidence base, which clinicians and decision-makers can use when deciding on the optimal first-line chemotherapy treatment regimen for patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and docetaxel for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic or locally recurrent unresectable breast cancer.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of pertuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic or locally recurrent unresectable breast cancer in accordance with the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) initial decision. At the time of writing, final guidance had not been published by NICE. The clinical evidence was mainly derived from an ongoing phase III randomised double-blind placebo-controlled international multicentre clinical trial (CLEOPATRA), designed to evaluate efficacy and safety in 808 patients, which compared pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel (pertuzumab arm) with placebo + trastuzumab + docetaxel (control arm). Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed at two data cut-off points-May 2011 (median follow-up of 18 months) and May 2012 (median follow-up of 30 months). At both time points, PFS was significantly longer in the pertuzumab arm (18.5 months compared with 12.4 months in the control arm at the first data cut-off point and 18.7 versus 12.4 months at the second data cut-off point). Assessment of OS benefit suggested an improvement for patients in the pertuzumab arm with a strong trend towards an OS benefit at the second data cut-off point; however, due to the immaturity of the OS data, the magnitude of the OS benefit was uncertain. Importantly, cardiotoxicity was not increased in patients treated with a combination of pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel. The ERG's main concern with the clinical effectiveness data was the lack of mature OS data. An additional concern of the AC was that the majority of patients in the randomised controlled trial were trastuzumab naïve, which does not reflect current clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) generated by the manufacturer's model are considered to be commercial in confidence data and therefore cannot be published. Nevertheless, the results of the manufacturer's probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel has a 0 % probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained when compared with trastuzumab + docetaxel. The ERG believes that more realistic estimates of the ICERs are considerably higher, almost double those presented by the manufacturer. This is because the ERG believes that due to the manner in which the economic model is constructed, the additional survival benefit following disease progression that is generated for patients treated with pemetrexed + trastuzumab + docetaxel is unrealistic. At the time of writing, NICE had not made a final decision regarding this technology but had instead referred the issue of the assessment of technologies that are not effective at a zero price to their Decision Support Unit for advice.

Allopurinol for the treatment of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The term chronic kidney disease (CKD) is used to describe abnormal kidney function (or structure). People with CKD have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Evidence is emerging that allopurinol may have a role to play in slowing down the progression of CKD and reducing the risk of CVD. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review addresses the research question: does allopurinol reduce mortality, the progression of chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular risk in people with CKD? DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched on 7 January 2013: MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 28 December 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined and two manufacturers of allopurinol were approached for data. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias by one reviewer and independently checked for accuracy by a second. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, where possible, data were pooled. Meta-analysis was carried out using fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Efficacy evidence was derived solely from four randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adverse event (AE) data were derived from the RCTs and 21 observational studies. Progression of CKD was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in three trials and by changes in serum creatinine in the other. No significant differences in eGFR over time were reported. The only significant difference between groups was reported in one trial at 24 months favouring allopurinol [eGFR: 42.2 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), standard deviation (SD) 13.2 vs. 35.9 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), SD 12.3 ml/minute/1.73 m(2); p < 0.001]. In this same trial, there were twice as many cardiovascular events in the control arm (27%) as in the allopurinol arm (12%). Another trial reported an improvement in CKD progression as measured by serum creatinine in the allopurinol arm. No significant differences were reported in blood pressure between treatment groups in the meta-analyses. The incidence of AEs was estimated to be around 9% from all studies. The incidence of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), which typically occurred within the first 2 months after allopurinol commencement, was reported to be 2% in two studies. Evidence for whether or not AEs and SCARs were dose related was conflicting. Not all patients had CKD in these studies. LIMITATIONS: None of the included studies reported concealment of allocation, one of the greatest risks to study validity. Relatively few (< 115) patients were enrolled in any RCT. For studies reporting AEs, the main limitation is the heterogeneity across studies. No studies examining quality-of-life measures were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that allopurinol reduces CKD progression or cardiovascular events. It appears that AEs and in particular serious adverse events attributable to allopurinol are rare. However, the exact incidence of AEs in patients with CKD is unknown. Direct evidence for the impact of allopurinol on quality of life is lacking. Given the uncertainties in the evidence base, additional RCT evidence comparing allopurinol with usual care is required, accompanied by supporting data from observational studies of patients with CKD and using allopurinol. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Vemurafenib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive malignant melanoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Vemurafenib is an oral BRAF inhibitor licenced for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutation positive malignant melanoma. The manufacturer of vemurafenib, Roche Products Limited, was invited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical- and cost-effectiveness for its licenced indication, to inform the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer and also includes a summary of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The ERG's analysis of the submitted economic model assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. It also included an assessment of the reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to impact substantially on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. The clinical evidence was derived from BRIM 3 (BRAF Inhibitor in Melanoma 3), a well-designed, multi-centre, multi-national, phase III, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Clinical outcome results from the October 2011 data cut showed that median overall survival for patients treated with vemurafenib was 13.2 months compared with 9.6 months for those treated with dacarbazine. The ERG's main concern with the trial was the potential for confounding because of the early introduction of the crossover from the comparator drug to vemurafenib or another BRAF inhibitor. The submitted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was considered above the NICE threshold, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The ERG questioned the submitted economic model on a number of grounds, particularly the approach used to project trial results. After the ERG had made appropriate corrections to the model and employed an alternative form of projective modelling, the ICER per quality-adjusted life year more than doubled. Additional evidence was submitted by the manufacturer for consideration at a second AC meeting and at their third meeting the AC concluded that vemurafenib could be recommended as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive malignant melanoma.

Are health technology assessments of pharmacogenetic tests feasible? A case study of CYP2D6 testing in the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen.

This paper reports the process and experience of the design and conduct of a UK-based health technology assessment (HTA) of CYP2D6 pharmacogenetic testing to inform the targeted use of tamoxifen for the treatment of breast cancer. Examples of particular challenges for conducting a HTA are highlighted. It is clear from the HTA process described here that a common finding of similar future HTAs will have gaps in the evidence base, particularly in relation to evidence to inform cost-effectiveness. The lack of evidence is likely to be sufficiently large to result in extreme uncertainty and possibly decisions not to recommend a pharmacogenetic test for use in clinical practice. This has clear negative implications, which may hamper moving pharmacogenetic tests from the research environment into clinical practice and requires attention from both manufacturers of pharmacogenetic tests and key decision-makers responsible for market authorization and reimbursement.

Perceptions and use of maternal health services by women in rural coastal Madang Province.

Maternal mortality remains exceptionally high in Papua New Guinea (PNG) at 733 per 100,000 live births. There has been little, if any, improvement in maternal mortality or maternity services since the 1980s. In 1992-1993 a survey of 550 women in rural coastal areas of Madang Province was undertaken to investigate the prevalence of maternal risk factors and parous women's utilization of and attitudes towards the existing health services. Women were classified as at risk on the basis of previous obstetric complications, parity, stillbirths and neonatal deaths. On this basis 67% of women were classified as being at risk in a future pregnancy. High rates of obstetric complications were reported, with only 42% of women delivering their most recent child in a health facility. There was no statistical difference between those not at risk and those at risk in terms of their use of antenatal care or having been referred for a health centre delivery. The most common reason given for not utilizing the existing health services was lack of access. Most commonly expressed positive perceptions of a health centre delivery were the availability of medical help (59%) and the physical comfort of the health centre (48%). Most common negative views expressed were lack of physical comfort (29%) and the attitudes of staff (11%). Women's opinion on village births was divided. Many (47%) thought that there was nothing good about a village birth and the same percentage cited lack of medical care if problems arose. On the other hand 36% of women thought there was nothing wrong with a village delivery, and 30% cited the care and respect received from relatives as a positive aspect. When asked for suggestions on how services could be improved only a minority of respondents expressed an opinion. Those who did wanted better access, more information on family planning and improved care and respect from staff.