Catheter Event Rates in Medical Compared to Surgical Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion.

Introduction: How patient, center, and insertion technique factors interact needs to be understood when designing peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion pathways. Methods: We undertook a prospective cohort study in 44 UK centers enrolling participants planned for first catheter insertion. Sequences of regressions were used to describe the associations linking patient and dialysis unit-level characteristics with catheter insertion technique and their impact on the occurrence of catheter-related events in the first year (catheter-related infection, hospitalization, and removal). Factors associated with catheter events were incorporated into a multistate model comparing the rates of catheter events between medical and surgical insertion alongside treatment modality transitions and mortality. Results: Of 784 first catheter insertions, 466 (59%) had a catheter event in the first year and 61.2% of transitions onto hemodialysis (HD) were immediately preceded by a catheter event. Catheter malfunction was less but infection was more common with surgical compared with medical insertions. Participants at centers with fewer late presenters and more new dialysis patients starting PD, had a lower probability of a catheter event. Adjusting for these factors, the hazard ratio for a catheter event following insertion (medical vs. surgical) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 1.13), and once established on PD 0.77 (0.62 to 0.96). Conclusion: Offering both medical and surgical techniques is associated with lower catheter event rates and keeps people on PD for longer.

Non-invasive diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis from ultrasound imaging with machine learning.

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a blood clot most commonly found in the leg, which can lead to fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). Compression ultrasound of the legs is the diagnostic gold standard, leading to a definitive diagnosis. However, many patients with possible symptoms are not found to have a DVT, resulting in long referral waiting times for patients and a large clinical burden for specialists. Thus, diagnosis at the point of care by non-specialists is desired. We collect images in a pre-clinical study and investigate a deep learning approach for the automatic interpretation of compression ultrasound images. Our method provides guidance for free-hand ultrasound and aids non-specialists in detecting DVT. We train a deep learning algorithm on ultrasound videos from 255 volunteers and evaluate on a sample size of 53 prospectively enrolled patients from an NHS DVT diagnostic clinic and 30 prospectively enrolled patients from a German DVT clinic. Algorithmic DVT diagnosis performance results in a sensitivity within a 95% CI range of (0.82, 0.94), specificity of (0.70, 0.82), a positive predictive value of (0.65, 0.89), and a negative predictive value of (0.99, 1.00) when compared to the clinical gold standard. To assess the potential benefits of this technology in healthcare we evaluate the entire clinical DVT decision algorithm and provide cost analysis when integrating our approach into diagnostic pathways for DVT. Our approach is estimated to generate a positive net monetary benefit at costs up to £72 to £175 per software-supported examination, assuming a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vitamin D Supplementation in Pregnant Woman and Young Children in Preventing Rickets: A Modeling Study.

Background: Literature on the cost of management of rickets and cost-effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in preventing rickets is lacking. Methods: This study considered the cost-effectiveness of providing free vitamin D supplementation to pregnant women and children <4 years of age with varying degrees of skin pigmentation to prevent rickets in children. Estimates for the prevalence of rickets were calculated using all cases of rickets diagnosed in Central Manchester, UK and census data from the region. Cost of management of rickets were calculated using National Health Service, UK tariffs. The efficacy of vitamin D supplementation was based on a similar programme implemented in Birmingham. Quality of life was assessed using utility estimates derived from a systematic literature review. In this analysis the intervention was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per Quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Fifty-seven patients (26 dark, 29 medium and 2 light skin tones) were managed for rickets and associated complications over 4-years. Rickets has an estimated annual incidence of 29·75 per 100,000 children <4 years of age. In the dark skin tone population vitamin D supplementation proved to be cost saving. In a medium skin tone population and light skin tone populations the ICER was £19,295 per QALY and £404,047 per QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that a vitamin D supplementation to prevent rickets is cost effective in dark and medium skin tone populations.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. DATA SOURCES: For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. LIMITATIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. 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. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture, known as low-level (or 'low-energy') trauma. Some people are at particularly high risk of fragility fractures. The first treatment used is often a bisphosphonate, but non-bisphosphonate treatments are alternatives. AIMS: We aimed to determine how effective non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]} are at preventing fractures, whether or not treatment has any risks for patients and whether or not the clinical benefits are achieved at a reasonable cost. METHODS: We have systematically identified and examined trials that assessed the clinical effects of non-bisphosphonates. For each clinical outcome, we have combined data from multiple trials to estimate the clinical effectiveness of each non-bisphosphonate treatment. We combined data from published sources in an economic model to estimate lifetime costs and clinical benefits for each non-bisphosphonate and compared these with the estimated costs and clinical outcomes for untreated patients and patients treated with bisphosphonates. RESULTS: All non-bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fractures compared with no treatment. For fractures at the hip or at any non-vertebral site, all of the non-bisphosphonates reduced the average number of fractures, but, for some non-bisphosphonates, we could not exclude the possibility that this was a chance finding. The chance of patients experiencing serious side effects was generally similar regardless of whether patients took non-bisphosphonates, bisphosphonates or placebo (a dummy pill). Blood clots were more common in patients taking raloxifene than in those taking placebo, but these were still a rare outcome (fewer than 1 in 100). The benefits of denosumab, teriparatide and romosozumab are few compared with their costs. For raloxifene, the risks generally outweigh the benefits. Treatment with bisphosphonates is likely to represent better value for money than treatment with non-bisphosphonates.

An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values.

BACKGROUND: Mapping is an increasingly common method used to predict instrument-specific preference-based health-state utility values (HSUVs) from data obtained from another health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. There have been several methodological developments in this area since a previous review up to 2007. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated review of all mapping studies that map from HRQoL measures to target generic preference-based measures (EQ-5D measures, SF-6D, HUI measures, QWB, AQoL measures, 15D/16D/17D, CHU-9D) published from January 2007 to October 2018. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of English language articles using a variety of approaches: searching electronic and utilities databases, citation searching, targeted journal and website searches. STUDY SELECTION: Full papers of studies that mapped from one health measure to a target preference-based measure using formal statistical regression techniques. DATA EXTRACTION: Undertaken by four authors using predefined data fields including measures, data used, econometric models and assessment of predictive ability. RESULTS: There were 180 papers with 233 mapping functions in total. Mapping functions were generated to obtain EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L-EQ-5D-Y (n = 147), SF-6D (n = 45), AQoL-4D/AQoL-8D (n = 12), HUI2/HUI3 (n = 13), 15D (n = 8) CHU-9D (n = 4) and QWB-SA (n = 4) HSUVs. A large number of different regression methods were used with ordinary least squares (OLS) still being the most common approach (used ≥ 75% times within each preference-based measure). The majority of studies assessed the predictive ability of the mapping functions using mean absolute or root mean squared errors (n = 192, 82%), but this was lower when considering errors across different categories of severity (n = 92, 39%) and plots of predictions (n = 120, 52%). CONCLUSIONS: The last 10 years has seen a substantial increase in the number of mapping studies and some evidence of advancement in methods with consideration of models beyond OLS and greater reporting of predictive ability of mapping functions.

Pembrolizumab for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Where Cisplatin is Unsuitable: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Merck Sharp & Dohme) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer where cisplatin is unsuitable. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the CS for pembrolizumab was based on one phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-randomised study (KEYNOTE-052), while the evidence for the comparator (carboplatin plus gemcitabine) was based on four studies, including one randomised controlled trial and three cohort studies. In the absence of head-to-head trials, the company conducted an indirect treatment comparison for both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), by firstly adjusting cross-study differences using a simulated treatment comparison approach and then synthesizing the evidence based on an assumption of constant hazard ratios using a standard meta-analysis model and time-varying hazard ratios using fractional polynomial models. The treatment effect of pembrolizumab was more favourable in the adjusted population compared with the observed effect in the KEYNOTE-052 study. The company submitted a de novo partitioned survival cohort simulation model, which partitions the OS time into PFS and post-progression survival. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pembrolizumab compared with carboplatin plus gemcitabine was estimated to be £37,081 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, based on the results within the company's health economic model. Following a critique of the model, for their preferred base case the ERG corrected some minor model errors, chose a progression approach for estimating utilities, and revised the extrapolation of PFS and OS. The ERG's probabilistic base case ICER was estimated to be £67,068 per QALY gained. The ERG also undertook a range of exploratory sensitivity analyses which suggested that the ICER was highly uncertain. In particular, the choices of extrapolation for the OS of pembrolizumab and the stopping rule for pembrolizumab had the largest impacts on the ICER. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended pembrolizumab for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund as an option for treating locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing chemotherapy, provided that pembrolizumab was stopped at 2 years of uninterrupted treatment, or earlier if the disease progresses, and the conditions of the managed access agreement for pembrolizumab are followed.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care. DATA SOURCES: Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies. RESULTS: Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease. LIMITATIONS: TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias. FUTURE WORK: Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients). CONCLUSION: In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of condom distribution programmes for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections in England.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence in England is a high priority, particularly among young people, men who have sex with men (MSM) and black ethnic minorities. An economic evaluation of condom distribution programmes (CDPs) to reduce STI transmission is presented. METHODS: An economic model using a Bernoulli process estimated the number of people acquiring an STI as a function of its prevalence, transmission rate, condom use, condom failure rate and number of sexual contacts. Models were developed for young people (13-24 years), black ethnic minorities, MSM and the general English population. Effectiveness evidence came from a recent systematic review. For young people, a CDP was modelled (relative risk for condom use=1.23), along with an exploratory analysis of the impact on unintended pregnancies. For other populations, threshold analyses were used to identify the combination of costs and effect size required to make a programme cost-effective. RESULTS: The base case predicted that CDP for all young people in England could avert 5123 STI cases per annum, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £17 411. In addition, it could avert 118 pregnancies and 82 abortions and save £333 000 in associated costs. Schemes for black ethnic minorities and MSM could also be cost-effective even with relatively high costs and small effect sizes. CONCLUSION: CDPs for young people are likely to be cost-effective or cost-saving. CDPs for other high-risk populations may also be cost-effective if they can increase condom use, since high HIV prevalence in these groups imposes a considerable health and cost burden.

Adalimumab for Treating Moderate-to-Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of adalimumab (AbbVie) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The appraisal assessed adalimumab as monotherapy in adult patients with an inadequate response to conventional systemic HS therapy. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was mainly derived from three randomised controlled trials comparing adalimumab with placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe HS. The clinical-effectiveness review found that significantly more patients achieved a clinical response in the adalimumab groups than in the control groups but that the treatment effect varied between trials and there was uncertainty regarding its impact on a range of other relevant outcomes as well as long-term efficacy. The company's submitted Markov model assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of adalimumab versus standard care for the treatment of HS from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. The original submitted model, including a patient access scheme (PAS), suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus standard care was expected to be £16,162 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred base case, which corrected programming errors and structural problems surrounding discontinuation rules and incorporated a lower unit cost for HS surgery, resulted in a probabilistic ICER of £29,725 per QALY gained. Based on additional analyses undertaken by the company and the ERG following the publication of the appraisal consultation document (ACD), the Appraisal Committee concluded that the maximum possible ICER for adalimumab compared with supportive care was between £28,500 and £33,200 per QALY gained but was likely to be lower. The Appraisal Committee recommended adalimumab (with the PAS) for the treatment of active moderate-to-severe HS in adults whose disease has not responded to conventional systemic therapy.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. DATA SOURCES: For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. LIMITATIONS: We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of group art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of mental health problems are non-psychotic (e.g., depression, anxiety, and phobias). For some people, art therapy may be a more acceptable alternative form of psychological therapy than standard forms of treatment, such as talking therapies. This study was part of a health technology assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research, UK and aimed to systematically appraise the clinical and cost-effective evidence for art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness and a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven randomised controlled trials were included (533 patients). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. The control groups varied between studies but included: no treatment/wait-list, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 7 of the 11 studies. A de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control and group art therapy with group verbal therapy. Group art-therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty although generalisability to the target population was unclear; group verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited available evidence art therapy was associated with positive effects compared with control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles. The included trials were generally of poor quality and are therefore likely to be at high risk of bias. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective versus wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding in the target population. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed comparison of the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy with group verbal therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: HTA project no. 12/27/16; PROSPERO registration no. CRD42013003957.

Nalmefene for Reducing Alcohol Consumption in People with Alcohol Dependence: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company (Lundbeck) marketing nalmefene (Selincro) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for reducing alcohol consumption in people with alcohol dependence. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) and to produce a critical review of the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from three phase III, company-sponsored, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence comparing nalmefene, taken on an as-needed basis, in conjunction with psychosocial support with placebo in conjunction with psychosocial support. Psychosocial support was provided in the form of BRENDA, an intervention of lower intensity than that recommended in NICE Clinical Guideline 115 (NICE CG115). Post-hoc subgroup analyses were conducted in people who were drinking at high or very high risk levels at baseline and maintained this level of drinking during the screening phase prior to randomisation. This subgroup forms the licensed population. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base which warrant caution in its interpretation. In particular, the post-hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the three nalmefene studies meant that the inference of treatment effects might be confounded. The company's economic evaluation showed that use of nalmefene in conjunction with psychosocial support in the form of BRENDA dominated the use of BRENDA in conjunction with placebo, providing more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a reduced cost. However, this evaluation did not meet the final scope issued by NICE, which specified that the comparator should be psychological intervention as defined in NICE CG115. The ERG produced alternative cost per QALY values for the comparison undertaken by the company and suggested three further comparisons deemed relevant: (1) nalmefene with psychological intervention as defined in NICE CG115; (2) delayed use of nalmefene in those who did not respond to psychological intervention as recommended in NICE CG115 alone; and (3) use of naltrexone outside of its marketing authorisation. The ERG thought it probable that using nalmefene in only those people who do not respond to psychological intervention alone was likely to be more cost effective compared with its immediate use in the entire licensed population. The Appraisal Committee accepted the comparison with psychosocial support in the form of BRENDA and believed that the most plausible cost per QALY was likely to be below £5100. Therefore, the Appraisal Committee concluded that nalmefene in conjunction with psychosocial support was a cost effective use of NHS resources compared with psychosocial support alone for treating people with alcohol dependence drinking at a high risk level, without physical withdrawal symptoms and not requiring immediate assisted withdrawal from alcohol.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy among people with non-psychotic mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems account for almost half of all ill health in people under 65 years. The majority are non-psychotic (e.g. depression, anxiety and phobias). For some people, art therapy may provide more profound and long-lasting healing than more standard forms of treatment, perhaps because it can provide an alternative means of expression and release from trauma. As yet, no formal evaluation of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders has been conducted. AIM: This review aimed to evaluate evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in major health-related and social science bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) from inception up to May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness, a qualitative review to explore the acceptability, relative benefits and potential harms, and a cost-utility analysis of studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of art therapy were conducted. RESULTS: In the quantitative review, 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included (n = 777). Meta-analysis was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. A narrative synthesis reports that art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 10 out of the 15 studies. The control groups varied between studies but included wait-list/no treatment, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Four studies reported improvement from baseline but no significant difference between groups. One study reported that outcomes were more favourable in the control group. The quality of included RCTs was generally low. In the qualitative review, 12 cohort studies were included (n = 188 service users; n = 16 service providers). Themes relating to benefits of art therapy for service users included the relationship with the therapist, personal achievement and distraction. Areas of potential harms were related to the activation of emotions that were then unresolved, lack of skill of the art therapist and sudden termination of art therapy. The quality of included qualitative studies was generally low to moderate. In the cost-effectiveness review, a de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control, group art therapy with group verbal therapy, and individual art therapy versus control. Art therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty, although generalisability to the target population was unclear. Verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more clinically effective. The cost-effectiveness of individual art therapy was uncertain and dependent on assumptions regarding clinical benefit and duration of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited available evidence, art therapy was associated with positive effects when compared with a control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles, and it was reported to be an acceptable treatment and was associated with a number of benefits. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective compared with wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding as well as evidence to inform future cost-effective analyses of art therapy versus other treatments. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003957. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a minimally invasive surgical procedure in which bone cement is injected into a fractured vertebra. Percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) is a variation of this approach, in which an inflatable balloon tamp is placed in the collapsed vertebra prior to cement injection. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate and appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PVP and percutaneous BKP in reducing pain and disability in people with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) in England and Wales. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was carried out. Ten databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2011, and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles and contact with an expert. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with painful osteoporotic VCFs with a group receiving PVP or BKP. In addition, lead authors of identified RCTs were contacted for unpublished data. REVIEW METHODS: Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life; back-specific functional status/mobility; pain/analgesic use; vertebral body height and angular deformity; incidence of new vertebral fractures and progression of treated fracture. A manufacturer provided academic-in-confidence observational data indicating that vertebral augmentation may be associated with a beneficial mortality effect, and that, potentially, BKP was more efficacious than PVP. These data were formally critiqued. A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of BKP, PVP and operative placebo with local anaesthesia (OPLA) compared with optimal pain management (OPM). Six scenario analyses were conducted that assessed combinations of assumptions on mortality (differential beneficial effects for BKP and PVP; equal beneficial effects for BKP and PVP; and no effect assumed) and derivation of utility data (either mapped from visual analogue scale pain score data produced by a network meta-analysis or using direct European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions data from the trials). Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted on each of the six scenarios. This report contains reference to confidential information provided as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal process. This information has been removed from the report and the results, discussions and conclusions of the report do not include the confidential information. These sections are clearly marked in the report. RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were identified and included in the review of clinical effectiveness. This body of literature was of variable quality, with the two double-blind, OPLA-controlled trials being at the least risk of bias. The most significant methodological issue among the remaining trials was lack of blinding for both study participants and outcome assessors. Broadly speaking, the literature suggests that both PVP and BKP provide substantially greater benefits than OPM in open-label trials. However, in double-blinded trials PVP was shown to have no more benefit than local anaesthetic; no trials of BKP compared with local anaesthesia have been conducted. A formal analysis of observational mortality data undertaken within this report concluded that it was not possible to say with certainty if there is a difference in mortality between patients undergoing BKP and PVP compared with OPM. Results from the cost-effectiveness analyses were varied, with all of BKP, PVP and OPLA appearing the most cost-effective treatment dependent on the assumptions made regarding mortality effects, utility, hospitalisation costs and OPLA costs. LIMITATIONS: Data on key parameters were uncertain and/or potentially confounded, making definitive conclusions difficult to make. CONCLUSION: For people with painful osteoporotic VCFs refractory to analgesic treatment, PVP and BKP perform significantly better in unblinded trials than OPM in terms of improving quality of life and reducing pain and disability. However, there is as yet no convincing evidence that either procedure performs better than OPLA. The uncertainty in the evidence base means that no definitive conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of PVP or BKP can be provided. Further research should focus on establishing whether or not BKP and PVP have a mortality advantage compared with OPLA and on whether or not these provide any utility gain compared with OPLA. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered as PROSPERO number CRD42011001822. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Routine echocardiography in the management of stroke and transient ischaemic attack: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Identification of the underlying cause of stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is important so that preventative therapy can be used to reduce the risk of recurrence. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) are diagnostic tools used to identify those cardiac sources of stroke that may respond to treatment. OBJECTIVES: (1) Undertake systematic reviews to determine (a) the prevalence of cardiac sources of stroke and TIA and (b) the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography; (2) undertake a survey to ascertain which guidelines and management strategies are used by UK stroke centres; and (3) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of TTE to the routine assessment of patients who have had a first-episode diagnosed stroke or TIA in the UK. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to December 2010 (prevalence) or September 2011 (diagnostic accuracy). Bibliographies of related papers were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic reviews were undertaken according to the general principles recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years accrued by each potential echocardiography strategy in the management of stroke and TIA for patients aged 45, 55 and 65 years. The model took a lifetime horizon and a NHS perspective. Costs and health benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Evidence to enable modelling was found for left atrial thrombus only. The cost-effectiveness of echocardiography is therefore based on all stroke patients being tested but only those with a left atrial thrombus receiving the benefits and harms of treatment. To describe current NHS stroke management practice we provided a questionnaire to the lead clinician of all stroke units in the UK. RESULTS: The searches identified 17,278 citations for the systematic review of the prevalence of potential cardiac sources of stroke and TIA, of which 65 studies were included. Patent foramen ovale was the most frequently reported pathology, followed by atrial septal aneurysm and mitral valve prolapse, with prevalence ranging from 0.25% to 73%, from 0.4% to 28% and from 0% to 31.6% respectively. For the systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography, 16,504 citations were identified, of which 51 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity to detect left atrial thrombus in three studies using transthoracic echocardiography in second harmonic imaging mode (TTEh) was 0.79 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.47 to 0.94], with a pooled specificity of 1.00 (95% CrI 0.99 to 1.00) compared with TOE. Differences in the diagnostic accuracy of tests occurred mostly in their sensitivity to detect cardiac sources of stroke. No adverse events data were reported. Our principal economic finding is that TTEh is a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with TOE when clinicians deem it the most appropriate test. The survey showed that the decision-making process for the management of stroke and TIA is very complex and varies considerably by site. It is clear that to accurately describe current management practice a very sophisticated questionnaire would be required. LIMITATIONS: The prevalence review highlights the difficulties that clinicians face when identifying the cause of cardioembolic stroke (the limitations of the tests, the confounding comorbidities and the inherent mobility of blood clots). The diagnostic accuracy review was limited by the small number of studies reporting data or because studies included too few participants with a cardiac pathology, leaving a large degree of uncertainty about the underlying diagnostic accuracy. The economic model has limitations because of the limited data available for important parameters such as the efficacy of treatment in reducing stroke recurrence. CONCLUSION: The economic analysis indicates that, in those cases in which TTEh is deemed the most appropriate test, it is a cost-effective use of NHS resources. However, this analysis has highlighted a lack of evidence in several areas and the results of the economic evaluation should therefore be treated with caution. There is a need for further evaluation of current echocardiography technologies, the causal associations between potential risk factors and stroke and whether or not anticoagulation therapies prevent recurrent stroke. Studies attempting to establish the prevalence of cardiac sources of stroke should identify all potential risk factors, rule out those that are not relevant and grade the findings according to risk. Research is also needed to reduce the uncertainty around the estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of TTEh and TOE, singly and in combination, in detecting treatable cardiac abnormalities compared with the 'gold standard' in each pathology. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO no. CRD42011001353. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A rapid-response economic evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy breast cancer screening program extension via a plausible bounds approach.

OBJECTIVES: The 2007 National Health Service Cancer Reform Strategy includes a proposed extension of the UK breast screening program to women aged 47 to 49 years. The aim of this study is to undertake a preliminary assessment of this proposal to identify the key factors determining its cost-effectiveness and to determine whether there is sufficient uncertainty that requires more thorough analyses. METHODS: An economic model was constructed. For simplicity, the health impact of screening was estimated by calculating the lives saved through shifts in prognostic group. A "plausible bounds" approach was used to derive distributions for model parameters for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. UK data were used to populate the model. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of the extension is estimated to be pound27,400 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with a 29% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of pound20,000 per QALY. The deterministic estimate of benefit becomes negative if the anxiety due to a false-positive result is set at 0.028 QALYs. Including a small positive benefit from a negative screen has a dramatic impact on the cost-effectiveness of screening. The impact of other factors appears less marked. CONCLUSIONS: Because the vast majority of women aged 47 to 49 years will test negative when screened for breast cancer and most of those who test positive will actually be free of the disease, the psychological impacts of screening are likely to drive cost-effectiveness for this age group. Therefore, a research priority should be to better understand and quantify these effects.