A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to synthesize evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir (RDV) for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in England and Wales. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted informed by 2 large trials and uses a partitioned survival approach to assess short- and long-term clinical consequences and costs associated with COVID-19 in a hypothetical cohort of hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen at the start of treatment. Given that it is uncertain whether RDV reduces death, 2 analyses are presented, assuming RDV either reduces death or does not. Published sources were used for long-term clinical, quality of life, and cost parameters. RESULTS: Under the assumption that RDV reduces death, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RDV is estimated at £11 881 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with standard of care (SoC) (probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £12 400). The probability for RDV to be cost-effective is 74% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RDV was no longer cost-effective when the hazard ratio for overall survival compared with SoC was >0·915. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that using RDV for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is likely to represent a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources at current willingness-to-pay threshold in England and Wales, only if it prevents death. Results needs to be interpreted caution as vaccination was introduced and the SoC and evidence available have also evolved considerably since the analysis is conducted.

Evidence for the impact of interventions and medicines reconciliation on problematic polypharmacy in the UK: A rapid review of systematic reviews.

This was a rapid review of systematic reviews (SRs) on problematic polypharmacy (PP) in the UK. The commissioner-defined topics were burden of PP, interventions to reduce PP, implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions, and efficient handover between primary and secondary care to reduce PP. Databases including Medline were searched to June 2019, SR quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Except for burden of PP (SRs had to include UK studies), there were no restrictions on country, location of care or outcomes. Nine SRs were included. On burden, three SRs (including six UK studies) found a high prevalence of polypharmacy in long term care. PP was associated with mortality, although unclear if causal, with no information on costs or health consequences. On interventions, six reviews (27 UK studies) found that interventions can reduce PP, but no effects on health outcomes. On handover between primary and secondary care, one review (two UK studies) found medicine reconciliation activities to reduce medication discrepancies at care transitions reduce PP, although the evidence is low quality. No SRs on implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions were found. SR quality was variable, with some concerns regarding meta-analysis methods. Evidence of the extent of PP in the UK, and what interventions to address it are effective in the UK, is limited. Future UK research is needed on the prevalence and consequences of PP, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce PP, and barriers and activities to ensure uptake.

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.

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.

Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy (including a review of TA140 and TA262): clinical effectiveness systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. UC can have a considerable impact on patients' quality of life. The burden for the NHS is substantial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions, to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of all interventions and comparators (including medical and surgical options), to estimate the expected net budget impact of each intervention, and to identify key research priorities. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications, European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. The following databases were searched from inception to December 2013 for clinical effectiveness searches and from inception to January 2014 for cost-effectiveness searches for published and unpublished research evidence: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and NHS Economic Evaluation Database; ISI Web of Science, including Science Citation Index, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Bioscience Information Service Previews. The US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website were also searched, as were research registers, conference proceedings and key journals. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review [including network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of named interventions. The health economic analysis included a review of published economic evaluations and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. The trials suggest that adult patients receiving infliximab (IFX) [Remicade(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (MSD)], adalimumab (ADA) (Humira(®), AbbVie) or golimumab (GOL) (Simponi(®), MSD) were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving placebo (PBO). Hospitalisation data were limited, but suggested more favourable outcomes for ADA- and IFX-treated patients. Data on the use of surgical intervention were sparse, with a potential benefit for intervention-treated patients. Data were available from one trial to support the use of IFX in paediatric patients. Safety issues identified included serious infections, malignancies and administration site reactions. Based on the NMA, in the induction phase, all biological treatments were associated with statistically significant beneficial effects relative to PBO, with the greatest effect associated with IFX. For patients in response following induction, all treatments except ADA and GOL 100 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although these were not significant. The greatest effects at 8-32 and 32-52 weeks were associated with 100 mg of GOL and 5 mg/kg of IFX, respectively. For patients in remission following induction, all treatments except ADA at 8-32 weeks and GOL 50 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although only the effect of ADA at 32-52 weeks was significant. The greatest effects were associated with GOL (at 8-32 weeks) and ADA (at 32-52 weeks). The economic analysis suggests that colectomy is expected to dominate drug therapies, but for some patients, colectomy may not be considered acceptable. In circumstances in which only drug options are considered, IFX and GOL are expected to be ruled out because of dominance, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ADA versus conventional treatment is approximately £50,300 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: The health economic model is subject to several limitations: uncertainty associated with extrapolating trial data over a lifetime horizon, the model does not consider explicit sequential pathways of non-biological treatments, and evidence relating to complications of colectomy was identified through consideration of approaches used within previous models rather than a full systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients receiving IFX, ADA or GOL were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving PBO. Further data are required to conclusively demonstrate the effect of interventions on hospitalisation and surgical outcomes. The economic analysis indicates that colectomy is expected to dominate medical treatments for moderate to severe UC. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30.

UNLABELLED: PURPOSE; To use published literature to estimate large, medium, and small differences in quality of life (QOL) data from the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). METHODS: An innovative method combining systematic review of published studies, expert opinions, and meta-analysis was used to estimate large, medium, and small differences for QLQ-C30 scores. Published mean data were identified from the literature. Differences (contrasts) between groups (eg, between treatment groups, age groups, and performance status groups) were reviewed by 34 experts in QOL measurement and cancer treatment. The experts, blinded to actual QOL results, were asked to predict these differences. A large difference was defined as one representing unequivocal clinical relevance. A medium difference was defined as likely to be clinically relevant but to a lesser extent. A small difference was one believed to be subtle but nevertheless clinically relevant. A trivial difference was used to describe circumstances unlikely to have any clinical relevance. Actual QOL results were combined using meta-analytic techniques to estimate differences corresponding to small, medium, or large effects. RESULTS: Nine hundred eleven articles were identified, leading to 152 relevant articles (2,217 contrasts) being reviewed by at least two experts. Resulting estimates from the meta-analysis varied depending on the subscale. Thus, the recommended minimum to detect medium differences ranges from 9 (cognitive functioning) to 19 points (role functioning). CONCLUSION: Guidelines for the size of effects are provided for the QLQ-C30 subscales. These guidelines can be used for sample size calculations for clinical trials and can also be used to aid interpretation of differences in QLQ-C30 scores.