Primary surgical management of anterior pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior compartment prolapse is the most common pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with a range of surgical treatment options available. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatments for the repair of anterior POP. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing surgical treatments for women with POP. Network meta-analysis was possible for anterior POP, same-site recurrence outcome. A Markov model was used to compare the cost-utility of surgical treatments for the primary repair of anterior POP from a UK National Health Service perspective. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials for the network meta-analysis involving eight surgical treatments tested on 3194 women. Synthetic mesh was the most effective in preventing recurrence at the same site. There was no evidence to suggest a difference between synthetic non-absorbable mesh, synthetic partially absorbable mesh, and biological mesh. The cost-utility analysis, which incorporated effectiveness, complications and cost data, found non-mesh repair to have the highest probability of being cost-effective. The conclusions were robust to model inputs including effectiveness, costs and utility values. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior colporrhaphy augmented with mesh appeared to be cost-ineffective in women requiring primary repair of anterior POP. There is a need for further research on long-term effectiveness and the safety of mesh products to establish their relative cost-effectiveness with a greater certainty. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: New study finds mesh cost-ineffective in women with anterior pelvic organ prolapse.

Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project.

BACKGROUND: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines (CGs) make recommendations across large, complex care pathways for broad groups of patients. They rely on cost-effectiveness evidence from the literature and from new analyses for selected high-priority topics. An alternative approach would be to build a model of the full care pathway and to use this as a platform to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiple topics across the guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVES: In this project we aimed to test the feasibility of building full guideline models for NICE guidelines and to assess if, and how, such models can be used as a basis for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). DATA SOURCES: A 'best evidence' approach was used to inform the model parameters. Data were drawn from the guideline documentation, advice from clinical experts and rapid literature reviews on selected topics. Where possible we relied on good-quality, recent UK systematic reviews and meta-analyses. REVIEW METHODS: Two published NICE guidelines were used as case studies: prostate cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF). Discrete event simulation (DES) was used to model the recommended care pathways and to estimate consequent costs and outcomes. For each guideline, researchers not involved in model development collated a shortlist of topics suggested for updating. The modelling teams then attempted to evaluate options related to these topics. Cost-effectiveness results were compared with opinions about the importance of the topics elicited in a survey of stakeholders. RESULTS: The modelling teams developed simulations of the guideline pathways and disease processes. Development took longer and required more analytical time than anticipated. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were produced for six of the nine prostate cancer topics considered, and for five of eight AF topics. The other topics were not evaluated owing to lack of data or time constraints. The modelled results suggested 'economic priorities' for an update that differed from priorities expressed in the stakeholder survey. LIMITATIONS: We did not conduct systematic reviews to inform the model parameters, and so the results might not reflect all current evidence. Data limitations and time constraints restricted the number of analyses that we could conduct. We were also unable to obtain feedback from guideline stakeholders about the usefulness of the models within project time scales. CONCLUSIONS: Discrete event simulation can be used to model full guideline pathways for CEA, although this requires a substantial investment of clinical and analytic time and expertise. For some topics lack of data may limit the potential for modelling. There are also uncertainties over the accessibility and adaptability of full guideline models. However, full guideline modelling offers the potential to strengthen and extend the analytical basis of NICE's CGs. Further work is needed to extend the analysis of our case study models to estimate population-level budget and health impacts. The practical usefulness of our models to guideline developers and users should also be investigated, as should the feasibility and usefulness of whole guideline modelling alongside development of a new CG. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research through the Methodology Research Programme [grant number G0901504] and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome).

OBJECTIVES: Generic preference-based measures such as EQ-5D are widely used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years but may not be available or, more importantly, appropriate in some medical conditions. Condition-specific preference-based measures (CSPBMs) provide an alternative to generic measures that may be more relevant in some conditions. This project conducted five studies to examine issues in the development and use of CSPBMS: (1) literature review of measures; (2) deriving health states values for classifications with highly correlated dimensions; (3) impact of condition labelling; (4) impact of add-on dimensions; and (5) comparative performance of measures. DESIGN: (1) Systematic search and literature review; (2) and (5) psychometric analyses on existing data; (2), (3) and (4) valuation surveys and survey analyses. SETTING: Valuation surveys conducted using face-to-face interviews in the respondents' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Valuation surveys conducted using representative samples of the UK general population. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The project developed a CSPBM CORE-6D and analyses AQL-5D, CORE-6D, EORTC-8D, EQ-5D, OAB-5D and SF-6D data. RESULTS: (1) There was substantial variability in methods used to develop CSPBMs. (2) A new method for generating states using Rasch analysis was undertaken, which successfully dealt with the problem of highly correlated domains. (3) Condition labels affected utility values but this was dependent on the condition and severity of the health state. (4) Adding on an extra dimension affected health-state values and preference weights for other dimensions. (5) The performance of CSPBMs was comparable with that of their parent instrument and of generic preference-based measures with better performance for discrimination between severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: CSPBMs have an important role for economic evaluation, for which generic measures are inappropriate. However, their use in economic evaluation may be compromised by naming the condition; the exclusion of side effects and comorbidities; and focusing effects. Whether a reduction in comparability should be accepted depends on the extent of any gain in validity and responsiveness. This will depend on the condition and measure in question. Research agenda: (1) The appropriateness of generic preference-based measures should be examined in more conditions (and compared with CSPBMs). (2) Further quantitative and qualitative work is requested into the impact of, and reasons for labelling effects. (3) Use of add-ons for condition-specific measures (for side effects and comorbidities) and as a solution to the limitation of generic measures should be explored. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods are highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies. However, their uptake is low in much of the developed world. This study aimed at assessing the cost-effectiveness of LARC methods from the British National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of the copper intrauterine device (IUD), the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), the etonogestrel subdermal implant and the depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA). Comparisons with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) and female sterilization were also performed. Effectiveness data were derived from a systematic literature review. Costs were based on UK national sources and expert opinion. RESULTS: LARC methods dominated COC (i.e. they were more effective and less costly). Female sterilization dominated LARC methods beyond 5 years of contraceptive protection. DMPA and LNG-IUS were the least cost-effective LARC methods. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of implant (most effective LARC method) versus IUD (cheapest LARC method) was pound13 206 per unintended pregnancy averted for 1 year of use and decreased until implant dominated IUD in 15 years. Discontinuation was a key determinant of the cost-effectiveness of LARC methods. CONCLUSIONS: LARC methods are cost-effective from the British NHS perspective. Practices improving user satisfaction and continuation of LARC method use should be identified and promoted.