Oligo(phenylenevinylene)-Based Covalent Organic Frameworks with Kagome Lattice for Boosting Photocatalytic Hydrogen Evolution.

Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) have shown great advantages as photocatalysts for hydrogen evolution. However, the effect of linkage geometry and type of linkage on the extent of π-electron conjugation in the plane of the framework and photocatalytic properties of COFs remains a significant challenge. Herein, two Kagome (kgm) topologic oligo(phenylenevinylene)-based COFs are designed and synthesized for boosting photocatalytic hydrogen evolution via a "two in one" strategy. Under visible light irradiation, COF-954 with 5 wt% Pt as cocatalyst exhibits high hydrogen evolution rate (HER) of 137.23 mmol g-1 h-1 , outperforming most reported COF-based photocatalysts. More importantly, even in natural seawater, COF-954 shows an average HER of 191.70 mmol g-1 h-1 under ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) light irradiation. Additionally, the water-drainage experiments indoors and outdoors demonstrate that 25 and 8 mL hydrogen gas could be produced in 80 min under UV-vis light and natural sunlight, respectively, corresponding to a high HER of 167.41 and 53.57 mmol h-1 g-1 . This work not only demonstrates an effective design strategy toward highly efficient COF-based photocatalysts, but also shows the great potential of using the COF-based photocatalysts for photocatalytic hydrogen evolution.

Rate of Complete Spectacle Independence with a Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify and obtain a precise single summary estimate on complete spectacle independence after bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AcrySof PanOptix, TFNTXX/TFATXX) for patients undergoing cataract surgery. METHODS: A search was conducted in PubMed from January 2017 to September 2021. Relevant congress presentations were also searched to include data from completed studies not yet published. Search terms included the intervention (TFNTXX, TFATXX, PanOptix) and outcomes of interest (patient-reported spectacle independence rates). A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, providing a pooled estimate (median and its 95% credible interval) of complete spectacle independence rates among cataract surgery patients. Subgroup analyses evaluated spectacle independence after cataract surgery across different working distances (near, intermediate, far). RESULTS: Nineteen unique clinical studies were identified. Based on a meta-analysis of 13 studies (N = 513 patients), the complete spectacle independence rate after cataract surgery with TFNTXX/TFATXX IOL was 91.6% (95% credible interval 86.8-95.9%). Additionally, the spectacle independence rates at each focal point (N = 13 studies, 603 patients) were 89.6% (near), 96.3% (intermediate), and 95.9% (far). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that at least nine out of ten patients receiving TFNTXX/TFATXX trifocal IOL during cataract surgery can expect to achieve complete spectacle independence. This study provides informative data for clinicians and patients to feel confident in the use of trifocal intraocular lenses as presbyopia-correcting IOLs that offer high rates of complete spectacle independence.

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms. OBJECTIVES: An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes. INTERVENTIONS: Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000. LIMITATIONS: Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study). STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520. 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. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used in relation to individuals who present to their general practitioner with persistent symptoms that cannot easily be explained, even after adequate physical examination and appropriate investigations. Common interventions delivered in primary care tend to be psychological interventions, behaviour therapies or physical exercise therapies. These therapies often aim to change the behaviours of the individual that may make symptoms worse. We conducted systematic reviews of existing evidence to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of behavioural interventions delivered in primary care, and a cost-effectiveness analysis to see whether or not they offer good value. Studies measured improvement in outcomes, such as physical or psychological symptoms, or health-related quality of life. There were large differences in the nature of the behavioural interventions delivered and so we grouped them into 'types'. These included intervention types involving exercise (e.g. aerobic or strengthening, or graded activity); different types of psychotherapy, for example cognitive­behavioural therapy; interventions focused on relaxation or social/emotional support; interventions offering education and information; and interventions by general practitioners, for example receiving training on how to implement a behavioural approach to treating medically unexplained symptoms. Statistical analyses were conducted to investigate which, if any, of the intervention types were effective when compared with usual care. Results indicated that some of the behavioural intervention types showed beneficial effects at the end of treatment and at short-term follow-up. In particular, cognitive­behavioural therapy at a higher intensity, and therapies consisting of components of more than one intervention type (i.e. multimodal therapies), showed beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms such as pain, fatigue or bowel symptoms. High-intensity cognitive­behavioural therapy, other types of psychotherapies and interventions focusing on relaxation and social/emotional support showed some beneficial effects on mood outcomes such as depression and anxiety. By long-term follow-up, effects had diminished. More complex measures of symptom load or 'somatisation' showed fewer beneficial effects. We found that no one intervention improved outcomes across all medically unexplained symptoms. However, the results of the statistical analyses should be interpreted with caution. Not only were there differences in the types of behavioural interventions trialled in the included studies, but there were also differences in the characteristics of interventions within the same type. Participants of the studies had a range of symptoms and syndromes, of varying severity and duration. Interventions of the same type varied in how they were delivered, for example the qualifications of the therapist and the contact time spent between therapist and patient. Owing to the limited number of studies in each intervention type, it has not been possible to identify how these differences influenced the results. Interventions delivered by general practitioners themselves did not generally show beneficial effects. However, the relationship between general practitioner and patient was perceived to be important. Patients valued receiving explanations for their symptoms and learning self-management techniques. This was facilitated by good relationships with their health-care practitioner. Health-care practitioners reported a need for training and supervision, but patients reported that the primary care setting was both appropriate and helpful. A successful behavioural intervention should allow a patient and their care provider to maintain a relationship where the patient feels supported. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of the interventions showed a wide variation in costs. Costs varied between different intervention types, but also between interventions of the same type. Differences in the nature of interventions within the same intervention type, for example whether delivery is to groups or to individuals, make comparisons difficult. Future research should focus on identifying how the relationship between the general practitioner and their patient can influence the effectiveness of a behavioural intervention when it is conducted in the primary care setting. In addition, more research is needed to explore which aspects of the more promising interventions are influencing their effectiveness.

Synthetic Biopigment Supercapacitors.

Biomass-based energy storage devices have drawn increasing attention owing to their renewability and sustainability, particularly that the heteroatom-doped carbons derived from natural polymers are regarded as the promising candidates in discovering advanced electrode materials for supercapacitors. This work has developed a facile one-pot fabrication strategy toward synthetic pheomelanin nanoparticles with controllable size and chemical composition (i.e., sulfur content) via the copolymerization of dopamine and cysteine. The resulting synthetic pigment materials possess outstanding thermal stability and are able to directly transform into monodispersed S,N-codoped carbon spheres with unaltered morphology. Compared with conventional polydopamine-based carbon spheres, the present carbonized pheomelanin nanoparticles with electroactive sulfur atoms could possess lower charge-transfer resistance and consequently higher specific capacitance (e.g., 243 F g-1 at 1 A g-1). This research continues to inspire researchers to develop new kinds of energy storage materials based on synthetic biopigment materials.

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.

Sarilumab for Previously-Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: 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 (Sanofi Genzyme) of sarilumab (SAR; Kevzara®) to submit evidence of its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for previously treated moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 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 effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for SAR was based predominantly on five randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of SAR against adalimumab, tocilizumab or placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of SAR against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed three network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: two in patients who had had an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) (one for combination therapies and one for monotherapies) and the other one in patients who had had an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis). The company's NMAs concluded that SAR in combination with cDMARDs or as monotherapy has a statistically superior efficacy to cDMARDs and a comparable efficacy to most biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in both populations. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of SAR from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services in seven different populations: (1) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs (cDMARD-IR); (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA for whom methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to a TNFi (TNFi-IR); (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) is not an option; (5) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (6) TNFi-IR patients after RTX; and (7) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA whose 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) is between 4.0 and 5.1. The company's economic evaluation resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) lower than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy versus its comparators when the comparators were less effective, and it resulted in cost savings higher than £60,000 per QALY lost when SAR was less effective, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible (where the ICER for SAR + MTX compared with RTX + MTX was £130,691 per QALY gained) and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0 (where the ICER of SAR + MTX compared with MTX was £38,254 per QALY gained). Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying two changes to the company's model: (1) use of a latent class approach to model Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) progression for patients on cDMARDs; and (2) amendment of the company's modelling of patient progression from moderate to severe RA. The ICERs estimated by the ERG's exploratory analyses for SAR + MTX increased to £171,466 per QALY gained when compared with RTX + MTX in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible, and to £63,438 per QALY gained when compared with MTX in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0. The Appraisal Committee concluded that SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered populations, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0.

Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: 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 invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 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 BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company's NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company's probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG's NMA results were broadly comparable with the company's results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible.

A New Approach for Sampling Ordered Parameters in Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) in cost-effectiveness analysis involves sampling a large number of realisations of an economic model. For some parameters, we may be uncertain around the true mean values of the variables, but the ordering of the values is known. Typical sampling approaches lack either statistical or clinical validity. For example, sampling using a common number generator results in extreme dependence, and independent sampling can lead to realisations with incorrect ordering. METHODS: We propose a new sampling approach for ordered parameters, the difference method (DM) approach, which samples the parameters of interest via a difference parameter. If the parameters of interest are bounded, it involves transforming the variables so that they are unbounded and then sampling via the difference parameter. We have provided a Microsoft Excel workbook to implement the method. The proposed approach is illustrated with an example sampling ordered parameters for utility and cost. RESULTS: The DM approach has a number of advantages when comparing with the typical approaches used in practice. It generates PSA samples that have similar summary statistics as the given values in our examples, while maintaining the constraint that one value was greater than another. The method also implies plausible positive correlation between the two ordered variables. CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical and statistical validity should be checked when producing PSA samples. The DM approach should be considered as a solution to potential problems in generating PSA samples for ordered parameters.

Olaparib for Maintenance Treatment of BRCA 1 or 2 Mutated, Relapsed, Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer in People Whose Relapsed Disease has Responded to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: 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 manufacturer of olaparib (AstraZeneca) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of olaparib for the maintenance treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated (BRCAm), platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer in people whose relapsed disease has responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical evidence related to one phase II, double-blind randomised controlled trial that recruited 265 patients with PSR serous ovarian cancer (OC) regardless of BRCAm status. Patients received olaparib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or matched placebo. In the whole population, the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was met (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.49, p < 0.01) for olaparib versus placebo. The BRCAm subgroup analysis (added after the study commenced but 1 month before the primary analysis was undertaken) reported an HR for PFS of 0.18 (95 % CI 0.10-0.31, p < 0.0001) for olaparib versus placebo, though interaction tests appeared inconclusive. Overall survival was not statistically significant in the whole group (HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.44) or the BRCAm subgroup (0.73; 95 % CI 0.45-1.17; p = 0.19), though treatment switching may have confounded results. The exclusion of data from sites allowing crossover resulted in an HR for overall survival (OS) of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.28-0.97, p = 0.039) in the BRCAm group. Health-related quality-of-life measures were not significantly different between groups. All post hoc exploratory outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation/death, time to first subsequent therapy/death, and time to second subsequent therapy/death) were statistically significantly better in the olaparib arm in the whole population and the BRCAm subgroup analyses. Adverse events were more frequent for olaparib but were largely minor or manageable. The company's semi-Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in patients with BRCAm PSR OC from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for olaparib versus routine surveillance is expected to be approximately £49,146 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did not consider the company's cost-effectiveness estimates to be credible. Additional ERG analyses suggested that the ICER is likely to be more than £92,214 per QALY gained. Additional analyses provided by the company in patients who received three or more lines of chemotherapy suggested a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile for olaparib. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaparib for this subgroup provided the cost of olaparib for people who continue to receive treatment after 15 months will be met by the company.

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: 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 manufacturer of degarelix (Ferring Pharmaceuticals) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of degarelix for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. 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 critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The evidence, which included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of degarelix versus leuprorelin, found that degarelix was non-inferior to leuprorelin for reduction of testosterone levels and that degarelix achieved a more rapid suppression of prostate-specific antigen levels and subsequently decreased incidences of testosterone flare associated with luteinising hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists. However, protection against testosterone flare for the comparators in the clinical trials was not employed in line with UK clinical practice. Further claims surrounding overall survival, cardiovascular adverse events and clinical equivalence of the comparator drugs from six RCTs of degarelix should be regarded with caution because of flaws and inconsistencies in the pooling of trial data to draw conclusions. The cost-effectiveness evidence included a de novo economic model. Based on the ERG's preferred base case, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICER) for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin was £14,798 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Additional scenario analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin ranging from £17,067 to £35,589 per QALY gained. Subgroup analyses undertaken using the Appraisal Committee's preferred assumptions suggested that degarelix was not cost effective for the subgroup with metastatic disease but could be cost effective for the subgroup with spinal metastases. The company submitted further evidence to NICE following an initial negative Appraisal Committee decision. Further analyses from the Decision Support Unit found that that, whilst some evidence indicated that degarelix could be cost effective for a small subgroup of people with spinal cord compression (SCC), data on the potential size of this subgroup and the rate of SCC were insufficient to estimate an ICER based on the evidence submitted by the company and a separately commissioned systematic review. NICE recommended degarelix as an option for treating advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in people with spinal metastases, only if the commissioner can achieve at least the same discounted drug cost as that available to the UK NHS in June 2016.

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.

A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Biologic and Non-Biologic Options for the Treatment of Adults with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis after the Failure of Conventional Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. Medical management aims to induce and maintain remission and to avoid complications and the necessity for surgical intervention. Colectomy removes the source of inflammation but is associated with morbidity and mortality. Newer anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapies may improve medical outcomes, albeit at an increased cost. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the incremental cost effectiveness of infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab versus conventional therapy and surgery from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with health states defined according to whether the patient is alive or dead, current treatments received, history of colectomy and level of disease control. Transition probabilities were derived from network meta-analyses (NMAs) of trials of anti-TNF-α agents in the moderate-to-severe UC population. Health utilities, colectomy rates, surgical complications and resource use estimates were derived from literature. Unit costs were drawn from standard costing sources and literature and were valued at year 2013/2014 values. RESULTS: For patients in whom surgery is an option, colectomy is expected to dominate all medical treatment options. For patients in whom colectomy is not an option, infliximab and golimumab are expected to be ruled out due to dominance, whilst the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus conventional treatment is expected to be approximately £50,278 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the NMAs, the ICERs for anti-TNF-α therapy versus conventional treatment or surgery are expected to be at best, in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The cost effectiveness of withdrawing biologic therapy upon remission and re-treating relapse is unknown.

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: 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 of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from GEMINI 1, a Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of the induction and maintenance of clinical response and remission by vedolizumab (MLN0002) in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC with an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of conventional therapy or anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α. The clinical evidence showed that vedolizumab performed significantly better than placebo in both the induction and maintenance phases. In the post hoc subgroup analyses in patients with or without prior anti-TNF-α therapy, vedolizumab performed better then placebo (p value not reported). In addition, a greater improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in patients treated with vedolizumab, and the frequency and types of adverse events were similar in the vedolizumab and placebo groups, but the evidence was limited to short-term follow-up. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, which warrants caution in its interpretation--in particular, the post hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the maintenance phase of GEMINI 1. The company also presented a network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus other biologic therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe UC. However, the ERG considered that the results presented may have underestimated the uncertainty in treatment effects, since fixed-effects models were used, despite clear evidence of heterogeneity among the trials included in the network. Results from the company's economic evaluation (which included price reductions to reflect the proposed patient access scheme for vedolizumab) suggested that vedolizumab is the most effective option compared with surgery and conventional therapy in the following three populations: (1) a mixed intention-to-treat population, including patients who have previously received anti-TNF-α therapy and those who are anti-TNF-α naïve; (2) patients who are anti-TNF-α naïve only; and (3) patients who have previously failed anti-TNF-α therapy only. The ERG concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors in model implementation, omission of relevant comparators, deviations from the NICE reference case and questionable model assumptions. The ERG amended the company's model and demonstrated that vedolizumab is expected to be dominated by surgery in all three populations.

What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cytisine compared with varenicline for smoking cessation? A systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is one of the leading causes of deaths worldwide. Nearly one-fifth of adults in the UK regularly smoke cigarettes. The ill-health associated with smoking costs the NHS over £3B every year. A number of pharmacological interventions are available that can help people to quit smoking. These include nicotinic receptor partial agonists such as varenicline or cytisine. Varenicline is a synthetic product licensed for use in the UK, while cytisine is derived naturally from the seeds of the plant Cytisus laborinum L. (golden rain acacia). OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of cytisine from smoking cessation compared with varenicline; to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cytisine and varenicline; and to provide recommendations based on value of information analyses as to whether or not a head-to-head trial of cytisine and varenicline would represent effective use of resources. DATA SOURCES: Efficacy and adverse events data were sourced from a recent Cochrane review. These data were supplemented with an updated search of twelve electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library, for the period from December 2011 to January 2013. The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult smokers attempting to quit using varenicline or cytisine. Further interventions were considered (placebo, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion) to allow an indirect comparison between varenicline and cytisine. The primary outcome was abstinence at a minimum of 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes were common adverse events such as abnormal dreams, headache, nausea, insomnia and serious adverse events. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the clinical evidence was undertaken. A random-effects model was used to allow for heterogeneity between studies. The economic model structure was based on a published model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to estimate the treatment expected to be most cost-effective given current information. Formal expected value of perfect information, perfect partial information and of sample information were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three (RCTs) were included in the systematic review, comprising a total of 10,610 participants. Twenty-one trials of varenicline of differing dosing schedules and two trials of cytisine at standard dose met the inclusion criteria. No head-to-head trials comparing varenicline with cytisine were identified. The methodological quality of the studies was judged to be moderate to good. Cytisine was more efficacious than placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 4.27, 95% credible interval (CrI) 2.05 to 10.05], as was standard-dose varenicline (HR 2.58, 95% Crl 2.16 to 3.15). Standard-dose varenicline treatment was associated with significantly higher rates of headache, insomnia and nausea than placebo; there was no significant difference in the rates of abnormal dreams. There were no significant differences in the rates of headache or nausea between cytisine and placebo; data were identified for neither abnormal dreams nor insomnia. Using expected values, cytisine is anticipated to dominate varenicline, in that it produces more quality-adjusted life-years at a lower associated cost. This occurred in approximately 90% of the scenarios performed. However, owing to the large number of people who wish to quit smoking (estimated to be 3 million over a 10-year period), the implications of making an incorrect decision is large. The expected value of sample information indicated that conducting a head-to-head trial of cytisine and varenicline was worthwhile, and that 1000 smokers per arm was an appropriate number to recruit. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evidence included in this review, varenicline and cytisine are both effective interventions to aid smoking cessation when compared with placebo. Cytisine is estimated to be both more clinically effective and cost-effective than varenicline. However, there is uncertainty in the decision, and a head-to-head trial of cytisine and varenicline would appear to be an effective use of resources. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003455. FUNDING DETAILS: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.