Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD: Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS: The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.

Background: Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective: The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design: This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting: National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results: The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions: The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients' quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation. Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive. The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.

Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN20579216.

Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique.

PURPOSE: The cost implications of limb reconstruction techniques have not been adequately investigated. Aim of this pilot study was to compare the direct medical cost of tibial bone defects managed with distraction osteogenesis-Ilizarov method (ILF), or with Masquelet technique (MIF). METHODS: Data of 20 random patients treated in a single centre were analysed. Inclusion criteria included acute tibial defects, or post-debridement of nonunions with complete follow-up and successful union. The endpoint of clinical efficacy was the time-to-defect union. Comparisons were made between equally sized subgroups (ILF vs. MIF). RESULTS: The average defect length was 5.6 cm (2.6-9.6 cm). The overall cost of 20 cases reached £452,974 (mean £22,339, range £13,459-£36,274). Statistically significant differences favoring the MIF were found regarding the average time-to-union; number of surgeries, of admissions and follow-up visits, as well as the mean intraoperative cost (£8857 vs. £14,087). These differences lead to significant differences of the mean cost of the overall treatment (MIF £18,131 vs. ILF £26,126). Power analysis based on these data indicated that 35 patients on each group would allow detection of a 25% difference, with an alpha value of 0.05 and probability (power) of 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The results and analysis presented highlight factors affecting the high financial burden, even in a best-case scenario, this type of surgery entails. Larger pivotal studies should follow to improve the cost efficiency of clinical practice.

Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients' Primary Care Contacts and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs. METHODS: Participants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls ("old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]") or "new NICE" if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as "old NICE." For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden. RESULTS: Median contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to -£28.05, -£50.43 to -£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision. CONCLUSIONS: The main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.

New horizons in evidence-based care for older people: individual participant data meta-analysis.

Evidence-based decisions on clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions are ideally informed by meta-analyses of intervention trial data. However, when undertaken, such meta-analyses in ageing research have typically been conducted using standard methods whereby summary (aggregate) data are extracted from published trial reports. Although meta-analysis of aggregate data can provide useful insights into the average effect of interventions within a selected trial population, it has limitations regarding robust conclusions on which subgroups of people stand to gain the greatest benefit from an intervention or are at risk of experiencing harm. Future evidence synthesis using individual participant data from ageing research trials for meta-analysis could transform understanding of the effectiveness of interventions for older people, supporting evidence-based and sustainable commissioning. A major advantage of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it enables examination of characteristics that predict treatment effects, such as frailty, disability, cognitive impairment, ethnicity, gender and other wider determinants of health. Key challenges of IPDMA relate to the complexity and resources needed for obtaining, managing and preparing datasets, requiring a meticulous approach involving experienced researchers, frequently with expertise in designing and analysing clinical trials. In anticipation of future IPDMA work in ageing research, we are establishing an international Ageing Research Trialists collective, to bring together trialists with a common focus on transforming care for older people as a shared ambition across nations.

Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these. RESULTS: In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind. CONCLUSIONS: The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.

Accounting for Heterogeneity in Resource Allocation Decisions: Methods and Practice in UK Cancer Technology Appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of novel, more efficacious and expensive cancer therapies is increasing, resulting in significant treatment effect heterogeneity and complicated treatment and disease pathways. The aim of this study is to review the extent to which UK cancer technology appraisals (TAs) consider the impact of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic search of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence TAs of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer was undertaken for the period up to April 2020. For each TA, the pivotal clinical studies and economic evaluations were reviewed for considerations of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. The study critically reviews the use of subgroup analysis and real-world translation in economic evaluations, alongside specific attributes of the economic modeling framework. RESULTS: The search identified 49 TAs including 49 economic models. In total, 804 subgroup analyses were reported across 69 clinical studies. The most common stratification factors were age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, with 15% (119 of 804) of analyses demonstrating significantly different clinical outcomes to the main population; economic subgroup analyses were undertaken in only 17 TAs. All economic models were cohort-level with the majority described as partitioned survival models (39) or Markov/semi-Markov models. The impact of real-world heterogeneity on disease progression estimates was only explored in 2 models. CONCLUSION: The ability of current modeling approaches to capture patient and treatment effect heterogeneity is constrained by their limited flexibility and simplistic nature. This study highlights a need for the use of more sophisticated modeling methods that enable greater consideration of real-world heterogeneity.

Trends in time to cancer diagnosis around the period of changing national guidance on referral of symptomatic patients: A serial cross-sectional study using UK electronic healthcare records from 2006-17.

BACKGROUND: UK primary-care referral guidance describes the signs, symptoms, and test results ("features") of undiagnosed cancer. Guidance revision in 2015 liberalised investigation by introducing more low-risk features. We studied adults with cancer whose features were in the 2005 guidance ("Old-NICE") or were introduced in the revision ("New-NICE"). We compared time to diagnosis between the groups, and its trend over 2006-2017. METHODS: Clinical Practice Research Datalink records were analysed for adults with incident myeloma, breast, bladder, colorectal, lung, oesophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, stomach or uterine cancers in 1/1/2006-31/12/2017. Cancer-specific features in the year before diagnosis were used to create New-NICE and Old-NICE groups. Diagnostic interval was time between the index feature and diagnosis. Semiparametric varying-coefficient analyses compared diagnostic intervals between New-NICE and Old-NICE groups over 1/1/2006-31/12/2017. RESULTS: Over all cancers (N = 83,935), median (interquartile range) Old-NICE diagnostic interval rose over 2006-2017, from 51 (20-132) to 64 (30-148) days, with increases in breast (15 vs 25 days), lung (103 vs 135 days), ovarian (65·5 vs 100 days), prostate (80 vs 93 days) and stomach (72·5 vs 102 days) cancers. Median New-NICE values were consistently longer (99, 40-212 in 2006 vs 103, 42-236 days in 2017) than Old-NICE values over all cancers. After guidance revision, New-NICE diagnostic intervals became shorter than Old-NICE values for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements for colorectal cancer, scope remains to reduce diagnostic intervals for most cancers. Liberalised investigation requires protecting and enhancing cancer-diagnostic services to avoid their becoming a rate-limiting step in the diagnostic pathway.

Health-related quality of life in neuroendocrine neoplasia: a critical review.

Incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) is increasing, as is use of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement in clinical trials. Following development of validated questionnaires, HRQoL is widely used to assess outcomes. This review is intended for healthcare professionals and is based on a selection of data published in the last decade. HRQoL is on par with other clinical endpoints such as performance status. Assessments in clinical trials have been particularly useful for monitoring the symptom burden of NEN, for the effects of treatments on patients' lives, and have provided new data allied to the usual clinical endpoints. QoL expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) have become the most important primary outcome to establish cost-effectiveness in health economic evaluation. From looking at clinical trials over the last 10 years, we see that the quality of HRQoL evidence reported in published studies has improved and, in general, recent studies are likely to be more methodologically robust. Assessment of HRQoL in clinical trials is likely to become a standard part of clinical practice in NEN, as in other cancers. However, clear methods for calculating the clinical meaningfulness of changes in scores are needed. Other limitations of HRQoL measurement include lack of specificity to certain symptom sets and ease of completion and administration. An international group taking a lead on developing HRQoL research specifically in NEN patients is needed to address limitations of the evidence base. In order for greater weight to be placed on HRQoL data, agreement on optimal, validated scoring systems is needed.

Predicting incident delirium diagnoses using data from primary-care electronic health records.

IMPORTANCE: risk factors for delirium in hospital inpatients are well established, but less is known about whether delirium occurring in the community or during an emergency admission to hospital care might be predicted from routine primary-care records. OBJECTIVES: identify risk factors in primary-care electronic health records (PC-EHR) predictive of delirium occurring in the community or recorded in the initial episode in emergency hospitalisation. Test predictive performance against the cumulative frailty index. DESIGN: Stage 1: case-control; Stages 2 and 3: retrospective cohort. SETTING: clinical practice research datalink: PC-EHR linked to hospital discharge data from England. SUBJECTS: Stage 1: 17,286 patients with delirium aged ≥60 years plus 85,607 controls. Stages 2 and 3: patients ≥ 60 years (n = 429,548 in 2015), split into calibration and validation groups. METHODS: Stage 1: logistic regression to identify associations of 110 candidate risk measures with delirium. Stage 2: calibrating risk factor weights. Stage 3: validation in independent sample using area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS: fifty-five risk factors were predictive, in domains including: cognitive impairment or mental illness, psychoactive drugs, frailty, infection, hyponatraemia and anticholinergic drugs. The derived model predicted 1-year incident delirium (AUC = 0.867, 0.852:0.881) and mortality (AUC = 0.846, 0.842:0.853), outperforming the frailty index (AUC = 0.761, 0.740:0.782). Individuals with the highest 10% of predicted delirium risk accounted for 55% of incident delirium over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: a risk factor model for delirium using data in PC-EHR performed well, identifying individuals at risk of new onsets of delirium. This model has potential for supporting preventive interventions.

The heterogeneous causal effects of neonatal care: a model of endogenous demand for multiple treatment options based on geographical access to care.

Neonatal units in the UK are organised into three levels, from highest Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), to Local Neonatal Unit (LNU) to lowest Special Care Unit (SCU). We model the endogenous treatment selection of neonatal care unit of birth to estimate the average and marginal treatment effects of different neonatal designations on infant mortality, length of stay and hospital costs. We use prognostic factors, survival and hospital care use data on all preterm births in England for 2014-2015, supplemented by national reimbursement tariffs and instrumental variables of travel time from a geographic information system. The data were consistent with a model of demand for preterm birth care driven by physical access. In-hospital mortality of infants born before 32 weeks was 8.5% overall, and 1.2 (95% CI: -0.7, 3.2) percentage points lower for live births in hospitals with NICU or SCU compared to those with an LNU according to instrumental variable estimates. We find imprecise differences in average total hospital costs by unit designation, with positive unobserved selection of those with higher unexplained absolute and incremental costs into NICU. Our results suggest a limited scope for improvement in infant mortality by increasing in-utero transfers based on unit designation alone.

Three biomarker tests to help diagnose preterm labour: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth may result in short- and long-term health problems for the child. Accurate diagnoses of preterm births could prevent unnecessary (or ensure appropriate) admissions into hospitals or transfers to specialist units. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this report is to assess the test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic tests PartoSure™ (Parsagen Diagnostics Inc., Boston, MA, USA), Actim® Partus (Medix Biochemica, Espoo, Finland) and the Rapid Fetal Fibronectin (fFN)® 10Q Cassette Kit (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) at thresholds ≠50 ng/ml [quantitative fFN (qfFN)] for women presenting with signs and symptoms of preterm labour relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml. METHODS: Systematic reviews of the published literature were conducted for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies of PartoSure, Actim Partus and qfFN for predicting preterm birth, the clinical effectiveness following treatment decisions informed by test results and economic evaluations of the tests. A model-based economic evaluation was also conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic tests. The model followed the structure of the model that informed the 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on preterm labour diagnosis and treatment, but with antenatal steroids use, as opposed to tocolysis, driving health outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified evaluating DTA against the reference standard of delivery within 7 days and seven studies were identified evaluating DTA against the reference standard of delivery within 48 hours. Two studies assessed two of the index tests within the same population. One study demonstrated that depending on the threshold used, qfFN was more or less accurate than Actim Partus, whereas the other indicated little difference between PartoSure and Actim Partus. No study assessing qfFN and PartoSure in the same population was identified. The test accuracy results from the other included studies revealed a high level of uncertainty, primarily attributable to substantial methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies. No study compared all three tests simultaneously. No clinical effectiveness studies evaluating any of the three biomarker tests were identified. One partial economic evaluation was identified for predicting preterm birth. It assessed the number needed to treat to prevent a respiratory distress syndrome case with a 'treat-all' strategy, relative to testing with qualitative fFN. Because of the lack of data, our de novo model involved the assumption that management of pregnant women fully adhered to the results of the tests. In the base-case analysis for a woman at 30 weeks' gestation, Actim Partus had lower health-care costs and fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than qfFN at 50 ng/ml, reducing costs at a rate of £56,030 per QALY lost compared with qfFN at 50 ng/ml. PartoSure is less costly than Actim Partus while being equally effective, but this is based on diagnostic accuracy data from a small study. Treatment with qfFN at 200 ng/ml and 500 ng/ml resulted in lower cost savings per QALY lost relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml than treatment with Actim Partus. In contrast, qfFN at 10 ng/ml increased QALYs, by 0.002, and had a cost per QALY gained of £140,267 relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml. Similar qualitative results were obtained for women presenting at different gestational ages. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the test accuracy and cost-effectiveness results. We are aware of four ongoing UK trials, two of which plan to enrol > 1000 participants. The results of these trials may significantly alter the findings presented here. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017072696. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Infants may suffer from health problems if they are born early. If a mother has symptoms of labour before her baby is due, a test could be used to predict if the symptoms are real or a false alarm. A test could help the doctor to decide whether the mother needs treatment or to move to a specialist hospital or if she could be sent home (if it is a false alarm). Our report compares three tests [PartoSure™ (Parsagen Diagnostics Inc., Boston, MA, USA), Actim^® Partus (Medix Biochemica, Espoo, Finland) and the Fetal Fibronectin (fFN) Test (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA)] on how well they predict an early birth and how the costs and the long-term health outcomes of the child compare between and among tests. All the published literature reporting the accuracy of the three tests and their costs was reviewed. We developed a new cost-effectiveness model, which estimated the long-term health outcomes of the child based on the test results. Twenty of the studies reviewed looked at how good the tests were at predicting an early birth within the next 7 days, and six looked at predicting birth within 48 hours. The designs of the studies and the women taking part in the studies varied greatly. This meant that comparing the accuracy of the tests was very difficult and it would be unfair to decide which test was the best. Our model suggested no firm conclusions for the cost-effectiveness of fFN compared with Actim Partus. PartoSure appears to be less costly than Actim Partus and equally good at predicting preterm birth, but this is based on a study of very few patients. There were no data that allowed us to compare all three tests together. The accuracy of the results is uncertain, mainly because all the studies are very different. We are aware of four related UK trials that are currently ongoing that plan to include large numbers of women.

Do time trade-off values fully capture attitudes that are relevant to health-related choices?

Previous research has shown that demographics, beliefs, and self-reported own health influence TTO values. Our hypothesis is that attitudes towards length and quality of life influence TTO values, but should no longer affect a set of related choices that are based on respondents' own TTO scores. A representative sample of 1339 respondents was asked their level of agreement to four statements relating to the importance of quality and length of life. Respondents then went on to value 4 EQ-5D 5L states using an online interactive survey and a related set of 6 pairwise health-related choice questions, set up, so that respondents should be indifferent between choice options. We explored the impact of attitudes using regression analysis for TTO values and a logit model for choices. TTO values were correlated with the attitudes and were found to have a residual impact on the choices. In particular, those respondents who preferred quality of life over length of life gave less weight to the differences in years and more weight to differences in quality of life in these choice. We conclude that although the TTO responses reflect attitudes, these attitudes continue to affect health-related choices.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Micro-costing analysis of guideline-based treatment by direct-acting agents: the real-life case of hepatitis C management in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Eradication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) using direct-acting agents (DAA) has been associated with a financial burden to health authorities worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the guideline-based treatment costs by DAAs from the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (BMoH). METHODS: The activity based costing method was used to estimate the cost for monitoring/treatment of genotype-1 (GT1) HCV patients by the following strategies: peg-interferon (PEG-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV plus boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TEL) for 48 weeks, and sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclastavir (DCV) or simeprevir (SIM) for 12 weeks. Costs were reported in United States Dollars without (US$) and with adjustment for purchasing power parity (PPP$). Drug costs were collected at the National Database of Health Prices and an overview of the literature was performed to assess effectiveness of SOF/DCV and SOF/SIM regimens in real-world cohorts. RESULTS: Treatment costs of GT1-HCV patients were PPP$ 43,176.28 (US$ 24,020.16) for PEG-IFN/RBV, PPP$ 71,196.03 (US$ 39,578.23) for PEG-IFN/RBV/BOC and PPP$ 86,250.33 (US$ 47,946.92) for PEG-IFN/RBV/TEL. Treatment by all-oral interferon-free regimens were the less expensive approach: PPP$ 19,761.72 (US$ 10,985.90) for SOF/DCV and PPP$ 21,590.91 (US$ 12,002.75) for SOF/SIM. The overview reported HCV eradication in up to 98% for SOF/DCV and 96% for SOF/SIM. CONCLUSION: Strategies with all oral interferon-free might lead to lower costs for management of GT1-HCV patients compared to IFN-based regimens in Brazil. This occurred mainly because of high discounts over international DAA prices due to negotiation between BMoH and pharmaceutical industries.

Cost-effectiveness of timely versus delayed primary total hip replacement in Germany: A social health insurance perspective.

Without clinical guideline on the optimal timing for primary total hip replacement (THR), patients often receive the operation with delay. Delaying THR may negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, but its economic effects are unclear. We evaluated the costs and health benefits of timely primary THR for functionally independent adult patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) compared to non-surgical therapy followed by THR after progression to functional dependence (delayed THR), and non-surgical therapy alone (Medical Therapy), from a German Social Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. Data from hip arthroplasty registers and a systematic review of the published literature were used to populate a tunnel-state modified Markov lifetime model of OA treatment in Germany. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to costs (2013 prices) and health outcomes (Quality Adjusted Life Years, QALY). The expected future average cost of timely THR, delayed THR and medical therapy in women at age 55 were €27,474, €27,083 and €28,263, and QALYs were 20.7, 16.7, and 10.3, respectively. QALY differences were entirely due to health-related quality of life differences. The discounted cost per QALY gained by timely over delayed (median delay of 11 years) THR was €1270 and €1338 in women treated at age 55 and age 65, respectively, and slightly higher than this for men. Timely THR is cost-effective, generating large quality of life benefits for patients at low additional cost to the SHI. With declining healthcare budgets, research is needed to identify the characteristics of those able to benefit the most from timely THR.

Immunosuppressive agents in adult kidney transplantation in the National Health Service: a model-based economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppression is required in kidney transplantation to prevent rejection and prolong graft survival. We conducted an economic evaluation to support England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in developing updated guidance on the use of immunosuppression, incorporating new immunosuppressive agents, and addressing changes in pricing and the evidence base. METHODS: A discrete-time state transition model was developed to simulate adult kidney transplant patients over their lifetime. A total of 16 different regimens were modelled to assess the cost-effectiveness of basiliximab and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rabbit ATG) as induction agents (with no antibody induction as a comparator) and immediate-release tacrolimus, prolonged-release tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus, everolimus and belatacept as maintenance agents (with ciclosporin and azathioprine as comparators). Graft survival was extrapolated from acute rejection rates, graft function and post-transplant diabetes rates, all estimated at 12 months post-transplantation. National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services costs were included. Cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per quality-adjusted life year were used. RESULTS: Basiliximab was predicted to be more effective and less costly than rabbit ATG and induction without antibodies. Immediate-release tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil were cost-effective as maintenance therapies. Other therapies were either more expensive and less effective or would only be cost-effective if a threshold in excess of £100 000 per quality-adjusted life year were used. CONCLUSIONS: A regimen comprising induction with basiliximab, followed by maintenance therapy with immediate-release tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, is likely to be effective for uncomplicated adult kidney transplant patients and a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

Azacitidine for Treating Acute Myeloid Leukaemia with More Than 30 % Bone Marrow Blasts: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of azacitidine (Celgene) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia with more than 30 % bone marrow blasts in adults who are not eligible for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, as part of the NICE's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Peninsula Technology Assessment Group was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness data used in the company's economic analysis were derived from a single randomised controlled trial, AZA-AML-001. It was an international, multicentre, controlled, phase III study with an open-label, parallel-group design conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of azacitidine against a conventional care regimen (CCR). The CCR was a composite comparator of acute myeloid leukaemia treatments currently available in the National Health Service: intensive chemotherapy followed by best supportive care (BSC) upon disease relapse or progression, non-intensive chemotherapy followed by BSC and BSC only. In AZA-AML-001, the primary endpoint was overall survival. Azacitidine appeared to be superior to the CCR, with median overall survival of 10.4 and 6.5 months, respectively. However, in the intention-to-treat analysis, the survival advantage associated with azacitidine was not statistically significant. The company submitted a de novo economic evaluation based on a partitioned survival model with four health states: "Remission", "Non-remission", "Relapse/Progressive disease" and "Death". The model time horizon was 10 years. The perspective was the National Health Service and Personal Social Services. Costs and health effects were discounted at the rate of 3.5 % per year. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of azacitidine compared with the CCR was £20,648 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £17,423 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay of £20,000, £30,000 and £50,000 per QALY, the probability of azacitidine being cost effective was 0.699, 0.908 and 0.996, respectively. The ERG identified a number of errors in Celgene's model and concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust. After amendments to Celgene's model, the base-case ICER was £273,308 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £277,123 per QALY. At a willingness-to-pay of £100,000 per QALY, the probability of azacitidine being cost effective was less than 5 %. In all exploratory analyses conducted by the ERG, the ICER exceeded the NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Given the evidence provided in the submission, azacitidine did not fulfil NICE's end-of-life criteria. After considering the analyses performed by the ERG and submissions from clinician and patient experts, the NICE Appraisal Committee did not recommend azacitidine for this indication.