Differences in survival between Maori and New Zealand Europeans with prostate cancer.

This study aims to examine the survival disparity between Maori men and New Zealand (NZ) Europeans diagnosed with prostate cancer. We identified men aged 40+ years in the Midland Cancer Network region registered with prostate cancer in 2007-2010 in the Cancer Registry. Data were extracted from patient notes of all Maori men and a sample of NZ Europeans. The survival disparity between Maori men and Europeans was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression models after adjusting for other factors. This study included 535 men with prostate cancer (135 Maori men and 400 Europeans). The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 98.6% for men diagnosed with localised cancer, 88.8% for locally advanced disease and 19.1% for metastatic cancer. The all-cause survival and the cancer-specific survival were both significantly poorer for Maori men than for NZ Europeans (log rank test: P = 0.004, 0.006 respectively). The hazard ratio of cancer-specific survival for Maori men was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.21-3.36) compared with NZ Europeans. Maori men with prostate cancer had poorer all-cause survival and cancer-specific survival than NZ Europeans. Maori men were at risk of having more advanced disease at diagnosis, which explains most of the survival inequity between Maori men and NZ Europeans.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a web based decision aid to support parents' decisions about their child's Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a web based decision aid versus a leaflet versus, usual practice in reducing parents' decisional conflict for the first dose MMR vaccination decision. The, impact on MMR vaccine uptake was also explored. DESIGN: Three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fifty GP practices in the north of, England. PARTICIPANTS: 220 first time parents making a first dose MMR decision. INTERVENTIONS: Web, based MMR decision aid plus usual practice, MMR leaflet plus usual practice versus usual practice only, (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decisional conflict was the primary outcome and used as the, measure of parents' levels of informed decision-making. MMR uptake was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Decisional conflict decreased post-intervention for both intervention arms to a level where, parents could make an informed MMR decision (decision aid: effect estimate=1.09, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.82; information leaflet: effect estimate=-0.67, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.46). Trial arm was significantly, associated (p<0.001) with decisional conflict at post-intervention. Vaccination uptake was 100%, 91%, and 99% in the decision aid, leaflet and control arms, respectively (χ(2) (1, N=203)=8.69; p=0.017). Post-hoc tests revealed a statistically significant difference in uptake between the information leaflet, and the usual practice arms (p=0.04), and a near statistically significant difference between the, decision aid and leaflet arms (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Parents' decisional conflict was reduced in both, the decision aid and leaflet arms. The decision aid also prompted parents to act upon that decision and, vaccinate their child. Achieving both outcomes is fundamental to the integration of immunisation, decision aids within routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72521372.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of the use of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors, adalimumab and infliximab, for Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a severe, lifelong disease characterised by inflammation of the gastrointestinal mucosa. The impact on patients and society is high as ill health can be lifelong and can negatively affect patients' quality of life. Costs to the NHS are high, particularly for patients needing hospitalisation. Conventional treatment pathways are complex. More recently, a group of drugs called tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (anti-TNF-α agents) have been evaluated for their effectiveness in CD. One of these, infliximab, is currently recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE; 2002) for patients with severe, active CD where patients are refractory to or intolerant of conventional treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there is evidence for greater clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness for either adalimumab or infliximab. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) 2007 Issue 2; MEDLINE (Ovid) 2000 to May/June 2007; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (Ovid) 4 June and 26 June 2007; EMBASE (Ovid) 2000 to May/June 2007. The European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration and other relevant websites. REVIEW METHODS: Standard systematic review methods were used for study identification and selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adalimumab or infliximab with standard treatment (placebo), RCTs comparing adalimumab with infliximab, or RCTs comparing different dosing regimens of either adalimumab or infliximab in adults and children with moderate-to-severe active CD intolerant or resistant to conventional treatment were eligible for inclusion. A systematic review of published studies on the cost and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab and infliximab was undertaken. The economic models of cost-effectiveness submitted by the manufacturers of both drugs were critically appraised and, where appropriate, rerun using parameter inputs based on the evidence identified by the authors of the technology asessment report. A de novo Markov state transition model was constructed to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adalimumab and infliximab therapy compared with standard care. RESULTS: Based on 11 trials, there was evidence from both induction and maintenance trials that both adalimumab and infliximab therapy were beneficial compared with placebo (standard care) for adults with moderate-to-severe CD and, for infliximab, for adults with fistulising CD; results were statistically significant for some time points. Between 6% and 24% (adalimumab), and 21% and 44% (infliximab) more patients achieved remission with anti-TNF-α antibodies than with placebo in the induction trials. Between 24% and 29% (adalimumab), and 14% and 24% (infliximab) more patients achieved remission with anti-TNF-α antibodies in the two large maintenance trials at reported follow-up. In fistulising CD, between 29% and 42% (induction trial) and 23% (maintenance trial) more patients achieved a > 50% reduction in fistulas with infliximab than with placebo at reported follow-up. There was no direct evidence to show that 'responders' were more likely to benefit from treatment than 'non-responders' in the longer term. Few differences were found between treatment and standard care arms for selected adverse events, though high proportions of scheduled crossovers resulted in a lack of a true placebo group in most of the maintenance trials. No published studies on the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab were identified. The four independently funded studies identified for infliximab suggested high cost-effectiveness ratios [all above £50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for non-fistulising disease and all above £100,000/QALY for fistulising disease]. A budget impact assessment suggested that total cost to the NHS in England and Wales for induction in severe disease only could range between £17M and £92M and for maintenance for 1 year between £140M and £200M. LIMITATIONS: Regarding clinical effectiveness, there were concerns about the trial design and lack of clarity, which may have affected interpretation of results. None of the trials matched exactly the licence indications or NICE guidance, which specify the use of these drugs in patients with 'severe' disease. All trials were multicentre, and applicability to UK populations, particularly in terms of standard care being provided and in terms of patients having failed or having become intolerant to conventional treatment, was uncertain. The published economic models relied heavily on little information and data from small samples. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF therapy with adalimumab or infliximab may have a beneficial effect compared with standard care on outcome measures for induction and maintenance. The findings were that for induction, both adalimumab and infliximab are cost-effective (dominant relative to standard care) in the management of severe CD, and adalimumab (but not infliximab) is cost-effective for moderate CD, according to limits generally accepted by NICE. On the basis of the analysis presented here, neither drug is likely to be cost-effective as maintenance therapy for moderate or severe disease. Perhaps, most importantly, the analysis reflected the fact that a substantial number of patients would achieve remission under standard care and that the incidence of relapse among those in remission was such that maintenance therapy would have to show greater effectiveness than at present and/or be much less costly than it currently is in order to reach the levels of generally accepted cost-effectiveness. Any future trials need to be designed to meet the particular challenges of measuring and quantifying benefit in this patient group. FUNDING: The research was funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE.

Azacitidine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of azacitidine (aza) compared with conventional care regimes (CCR) for higher risk patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), based on the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The patient outcomes governing relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were defined as overall survival, time to progression (TTP) to AML, adverse events and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The clinical evidence was derived from an open-label randomised controlled trial referred to as study AZA-001. It compared aza with CCR in 358 patients with higher risk MDS, CMML and AML 20-30% blasts. The outcomes reported in AZA-001 included overall survival, TTP to AML and adverse events. No HRQoL results were reported; however, outcomes likely to impact on HRQoL were provided. The results showed that: the median overall survival was 24.5 months on aza, compared with 15.0 months in the CCR group (p = 0.0001); the response rates were low (complete remission 17% aza versus 8% CCR); the median time to transformation to AML was greater in the aza group (17.8 versus 11.5 months; p < 0.0001); and of patients who were red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent at baseline, 45% of those on aza became RBC transfusion-independent during the treatment period, compared with 11.8% in the CCR group (p < 0.0001). The ERG reran the submission's search strategies after some modifications incorporating minor improvements. The ERG analysed the submitted economic model (model 1) and identified a number of inconsistencies and errors within the model. The manufacturer submitted a revised model for analysis by the ERG. Using the issues identified in the earlier analysis, the ERG conducted those repairs to the revised model that were feasible within time constraints. The ERG ran this version in probabilistic sensitivity analyses to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. The results of these exploratory analyses indicated that: for standard-dose chemotherapy (SDC)-treated patients, of six treatment options available, best supportive care (BSC) was likely the most cost-effective option up to a threshold of 51,000 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [beyond 51,000 pounds/QALY, aza + low-dose chemotherapy (LDC) became cost-effective]; for LDC-treated patients, of four options available, BSC was again the most cost-effective option up to a willingness-to-pay threshold of 51,000 pounds/QALY (aza + LDC became cost-effective after 51,000 pounds/QALY); for BSC-treated patients, aza + BSC became cost-effective relative to BSC at a threshold of about 52,000 pounds/QALY. The ERG considers these results exploratory and considers that they should be viewed with caution. The AZA-001 study showed that, compared with CCR, those MDS patients receiving aza had prolonged median survival, had delayed progression to AML, had reduced dependence on transfusions and had a small improvement in response rate. Given the general paucity of economic modelling work in MDS and the limitations of the submitted industry model there is an evident need for an independent cost-effectiveness analysis of aza in MDS. At the time of writing, the guidance appraisal consultation document issued by NICE on 4 March 2010 states that azacitidine is not recommended as a treatment option for people not eligible for haemopoietic stem cell transplantation with the the following conditions: intermediate-2 and high-risk MDS according to the International Prognostic Scoring System, CMML with 10-29% marrow blasts without myeloproliferative disorder, or with AML with 20-30% blasts and multilineage dysplasia, according to World Health Organization classification.