Infliximab versus ciclosporin in steroid resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis: a model-based cost-utility analysis of data from CONSTRUCT pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence in the literature on the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis (ASUC). The study aimed to perform decision analytic model-based long-term cost-utility analysis (CUA) of infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant ASUC investigated in CONSTRUCT pragmatic trial. METHODS: A decision tree (DT) model was developed using two-year health effect, resource use and costs data from CONSTRUCT trial to estimate relative cost-effectiveness of two competing drugs from the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Services (NHS) perspective. Using short-term trial data, a Markov model (MM) was then developed and evaluated over further 18 years. Both DT and MM were combined to investigate cost-effectiveness of infliximab versus ciclosporin for ASUC patients over 20-year time horizon, with a rigorous multiple deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to address uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The decision tree mirrored trial-based results. Beyond 2-year trial follow-up, Markov model predicted a decrease in colectomy rate, but it remained slightly higher for ciclosporin. NHS costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over base-case 20 year time horizon were £26,793 and 9.816 for ciclosporin and £34,185 and 9.106 for infliximab, suggesting ciclosporin dominates infliximab. Ciclosporin had 95% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold value up to £20,000. CONCLUSION: Using data from a pragmatic RCT, the cost-effectiveness models produced incremental net health benefit in favour of ciclosporin relative to infliximab. Results from long-term modelling indicated that ciclosporin remains dominant compared with infliximab for the treatment of NHS ASUC patients, however, these need to be interpreted cautiously. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CONSTRUCT Trial registration number ISRCTN22663589; EudraCT number: 2008- 001968-36 (Date 27/08/2008).

Do Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life (QoL) Scales Provide an Adequate Assessment of Patients with Cryptoglandular Anal Fistulae? A Systematic Review of Measurement Instruments and Their Content Validity.

BACKGROUND: Cryptoglandular anal fistulae can significantly affect patient quality of life (QoL), making it essential to ensure that any study of fistula treatment assesses the impact on QoL. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the content validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) that assess QoL in patients with a fistula. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched and studies assessing the content validity of patient-reported QoL measurement instruments, or PROM development studies in patients with cryptoglandular anal fistulae, were included. Data were extracted from eligible studies to determine the instruments' relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, and their quality was assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). RESULTS: Two PROM development studies were identified, both of which described the development of a disease-specific QoL measurement instrument for patients with cryptoglandular anal fistulae. The overall content validity of these instruments was inconsistent and supported by very low-quality evidence. There were no studies assessing the content validity of established QoL measurement instruments in patients with fistulae. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review could not establish the content validity of the available QoL PROMs for patients with anal fistulae, due either to the absence of designated content validity studies or a lack of comprehensiveness of the available PROMs. This highlights an important gap in the literature that needs to be addressed to ensure high-quality outcome assessment in patients with fistulae.

Healthcare professionals' views of the use and administration of two salvage therapy drugs for acute ulcerative colitis: a nested qualitative study within the CONSTRUCT trial.

OBJECTIVES: Insight into healthcare professionals' views and experiences of the use of ciclosporin and infliximab as salvage therapies for acute ulcerative colitis (UC) and how this may affect participation in a comparison trial is lacking. The study aimed to capture views and opinions of healthcare professionals about the two drugs within the CONSTRUCT trial. DESIGN: An interview-based qualitative study using Framework Analysis embedded within an open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. SETTING: National Health Service Health Boards and Trusts, including large teaching and district hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Principal Investigators (PIs) for trial sites (who were all consultant gastroenterologists) and nurses responsible for administering and monitoring the salvage therapy drugs across trial sites. 15 PIs and 8 nurses recruited from a range of sites stratified by site recruitment rates were interviewed. RESULTS: Interviews revealed that professionals made judgements regarding the salvage therapies largely based on experience of giving the two drugs and perceptions of effectiveness and adverse side effects. A clear preference for infliximab among nurses was revealed, largely based on experiences of administration and drug handling, with some doctors strongly favouring infliximab based on experience of prescribing the drug as well as patient views and the existing evidence base. Most doctors were more equivocal, and all were prepared to suspend preferences and wait for evidence of effectiveness and safety from the CONSTRUCT trial. PIs also questioned guidelines around drug use and restrictions placed on personal autonomy in delivering best patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight healthcare professionals' preference for the salvage treatment, infliximab in treating steroid-resistant UC, largely based on resource intensive nursing requirements of intravenous administration of ciclosporin. Not all doctors expressed this preference, being more equivocal, and all professionals were content to suspend preferences within the CONSTRUCT trial and recognised the importance of establishing relative effectiveness and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 22663589.

Infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis (CONSTRUCT): a mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival-ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2010, and Feb 26, 2013, 270 patients were recruited. 135 patients were allocated to the infliximab group and 135 to the ciclosporin group. 121 (90%) patients in each group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival (mean AUC 564·0 [SD 241·9] in the infliximab group vs 587·0 [226·2] in the ciclosporin group; mean adjusted difference 7·9 [95% CI -22·0 to 37·8]; p=0·603). Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes of CUCQ scores, EQ-5D, or SF-6D scores; frequency of colectomy (55 [41%] of 135 patients in the infliximab group vs 65 [48%] of 135 patients in the ciclosporin group; p=0·223); or mean time to colectomy (811 [95% CI 707-912] days in the infliximab group vs 744 [638-850] days in the ciclosporin group; p=0·251). There were no differences in serious adverse reactions (16 reactions in 14 participants receiving infliximab vs ten in nine patients receiving ciclosporin); serious adverse events (21 in 16 patients vs 25 in 17 patients); or deaths (three in the infliximab group vs none in the ciclosporin group). INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: pragmatic randomised Trial and economic evaluation (CONSTRUCT).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is proven, but there has been no comparative evaluation of effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating steroid-resistant acute severe UC. METHOD: Between May 2010 and February 2013 we recruited 270 participants from 52 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to an open-label parallel-group, pragmatic randomised trial. Consented patients admitted with severe colitis completed baseline quality-of-life questionnaires before receiving intravenous hydrocortisone. If they failed to respond within about 5 days, and met other inclusion criteria, we invited them to participate and used a web-based adaptive randomisation algorithm to allocate them in equal proportions between 5 mg/kg of intravenous infliximab at 0, 2 and 6 weeks or 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous ciclosporin for 7 days followed by 5.5 mg/kg/day of oral ciclosporin until 12 weeks from randomisation. Further treatment was at the discretion of physicians responsible for clinical management. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival (QAS): the area under the curve (AUC) of scores derived from Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaires completed by participants at 3 and 6 months, and then 6-monthly over 1-3 years, more frequently after surgery. Secondary outcomes collected simultaneously included European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores and NHS resource use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Blinding was possible only for data analysts. We interviewed 20 trial participants and 23 participating professionals. Funded data collection finished in March 2014. Most participants consented to complete annual questionnaires and for us to analyse their routinely collected health data over 10 years. RESULTS: The 135 participants in each group were well matched at baseline. In 121 participants analysed in each group, we found no significant difference between infliximab and ciclosporin in QAS [mean difference in AUC/day 0.0297 favouring ciclosporin, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0088 to 0.0682; p = 0.129]; EQ-5D scores (quality-adjusted life-year mean difference 0.021 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.032 to 0.096; p = 0.350); Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions scores (mean difference 0.0051 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.0250 to 0.0353; p = 0.737). There was no statistically significant difference in colectomy rates [odds ratio (OR) 1.350 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.832 to 2.188; p = 0.223]; numbers of serious adverse reactions (event ratio = 0.938 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.590 to 1.493; p = 0.788); participants with serious adverse reactions (OR 0.660 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.282 to 1.546; p = 0.338); numbers of serious adverse events (event ratio 1.075 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.603 to 1.917; p = 0.807); participants with serious adverse events (OR 0.999 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.114; p = 0.998); deaths (all three who died received infliximab; p = 0.247) or concomitant use of immunosuppressants. The lower cost of ciclosporin led to lower total NHS costs (mean difference -£5632, 95% CI -£8305 to -£2773; p < 0.001). Interviews highlighted the debilitating effect of UC; participants were more positive about infliximab than ciclosporin. Professionals reported advantages and disadvantages with both drugs, but nurses disliked the intravenous ciclosporin. CONCLUSIONS: Total cost to the NHS was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of SAEs or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1-3 years post treatment. To assess long-term outcome participants will be followed up for 10 years post randomisation, using questionnaires and routinely collected data. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of new anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs and formulations of ciclosporin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22663589. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised controlled trial. Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: Trial design and protocol (CONSTRUCT).

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) present with acute exacerbations needing hospital admission. Treatment includes intravenous steroids but up to 40% of patients do not respond and require emergency colectomy. Mortality following emergency colectomy has fallen, but 10% of patients still die within 3 months of surgery. Infliximab and ciclosporin, both immunosuppressive drugs, offer hope for treating steroid-resistant UC as there is evidence of their short-term effectiveness. As there is little long-term evidence, this pragmatic randomised trial, known as Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: a Trial (CONSTRUCT), aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin for steroid-resistant UC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Between May 2010 and February 2013, 52 UK centres recruited 270 patients admitted with acute severe UC who failed to respond to intravenous steroids but did not need surgery. We allocated them at random in equal proportions between infliximab and ciclosporin.The primary clinical outcome measure is quality-adjusted survival, that is survival weighted by Crohn's and Colitis Questionnaire (CCQ) participants' scores, analysed by Cox regression. Secondary outcome measures include: the CCQ-an extension of the validated but community-focused UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) to include patients with acute severe colitis and stoma; two general quality of life measures-EQ-5D and SF-12; mortality; survival weighted by EQ-5D; emergency and planned colectomies; readmissions; incidence of adverse events including malignancies, serious infections and renal disorders; disease activity; National Health Service (NHS) costs and patient-borne costs. Interviews investigate participants' views on therapies for acute severe UC and healthcare professionals' views on the two drugs and their administration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research Ethics Committee for Wales has given ethical approval (Ref. 08/MRE09/42); each participating Trust or Health Board has given NHS Reseach & Development approval. We plan to present trial findings at international and national conferences and publish in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN: 22663589; EudraCT number: 2008-001968-36.