Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Prognostic tools for identification of high risk in people with Crohn's disease: systematic review and cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease is a lifelong condition that can affect any segment of the gastrointestinal tract. Some people with Crohn's disease may be at higher risk of following a severe course of disease than others and being able to identify the level of risk a patient has could lead to personalised management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two tools for the stratification of people with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease by risk of following a severe course of disease. DATA SOURCES: The data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to inform the systematic reviews on prognostic accuracy, clinical impact of the prognostic tools, and economic evaluations. Additional data sources to inform the review of economic evaluations were NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of electronic databases were carried out from inception to June 2019 for studies assessing the prognostic accuracy and clinical impact of the IBDX® (Crohn's disease Prognosis Test; Glycominds Ltd, Lod, Israel) biomarker stratification tool and the PredictSURE-IBD™ (PredictImmune Ltd, Cambridge, UK) tool. Systematic reviews of studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for Crohn's disease were run from inception to July 2019. Two reviewers independently agreed on studies for inclusion, assessed the quality of included studies and validated the data extracted from studies. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded the synthesis of data for prognostic accuracy. A de novo economic model was developed to compare the costs and consequences of two treatment approaches - the 'top-down' and 'step-up' strategies, with step-up considered standard care - in people at high risk of following a severe course of Crohn's disease. The model comprised a decision tree and a Markov cohort model. RESULTS: Sixteen publications, including eight original studies (n = 1478), were deemed relevant to the review of prognostic accuracy. Documents supplied by the companies marketing the prognostic tools were also reviewed. No study meeting the eligibility criteria reported on the sensitivity or specificity of the IBDX biomarker stratification tool, whereas one study provided estimates of sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value for the PredictSURE-IBD tool. All identified studies were observational and were considered to provide weak evidence on the effectiveness of the tools. Owing to the paucity of data on the two tools, in the base-case analysis the accuracy of PredictSURE-IBD was assumed to be 100%. Accuracy of IBDX was assumed to be 100% in a scenario analysis, with the cost of the tests being the only difference between the analyses. The incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness demonstrated that top-down (via the use of PredictSURE-IBD in the model) is more expensive and generates fewer quality-adjusted life-years than step-up (via the standard care arm of the model). LIMITATIONS: Despite extensive systematic searches of the literature, no robust evidence was identified of the prognostic accuracy of the biomarker stratification tools IBDX and PredictSURE-IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Although the model indicates that standard care dominates the tests, the lack of evidence of prognostic accuracy of the two tests and the uncertainty around the benefits of the top-down and step-up treatment approaches mean that the results should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019138737. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Crohn's disease is a condition in which parts of the digestive system become inflamed (swollen). People of any age can develop Crohn's disease. It is a lifelong condition for which there is no cure. In the UK, Crohn's disease affects about 1 in every 650 people. Any part of the digestive system can be affected, and the severity of the disease can vary from person to person. Symptoms come and go, and there can be times when there are no symptoms at all. Common symptoms of Crohn's disease are diarrhoea, stomach-ache and blood in faeces. Treatment is given to reduce or control symptoms and to try to stop inflammation from coming back. Some people with Crohn's disease are more likely than others to have more relapses and to develop complications of Crohn's disease that might require surgery. This project looked at how well two tools worked at identifying people with Crohn's disease who might develop complications or need surgery. Identifying those who have a higher chance of experiencing complications of Crohn's disease could help them and their doctor to choose their treatment, with the goal of reducing the number of relapses and the risk of surgery in the longer term. In addition, the review assessed whether or not the tools offered value for money. We found limited evidence of how well the tools worked in identifying people who were more likely to develop complications of Crohn's disease. The lack of evidence on the tools meant that the cost-effectiveness analysis could only assess the value for money of the treatment that is given in clinical practice at this time or of more intensive treatments for people who are more likely to develop complications. The analysis found that current standard care offers more value for money than intensive treatments for people with a higher chance of developing complications of Crohn's disease.

Implantable cardiac monitors to detect atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cryptogenic stroke is a stroke for which no cause is identified after standard diagnostic tests. Long-term implantable cardiac monitors may be better at diagnosing atrial fibrillation and provide an opportunity to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence with anticoagulants. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three implantable monitors [BioMonitor 2-AF™ (Biotronik SE & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), Confirm Rx™ (Abbott Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and Reveal LINQ™ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke and for whom no atrial fibrillation is detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from inception until September 2018. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken. Two reviewers agreed on studies for inclusion and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Results were discussed narratively because there were insufficient data for synthesis. A two-stage de novo economic model was developed: (1) a short-term patient flow model to identify cryptogenic stroke patients who have had atrial fibrillation detected and been prescribed anticoagulation treatment (rather than remaining on antiplatelet treatment) and (2) a long-term Markov model that captured the lifetime costs and benefits of patients on either anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial, Cryptogenic Stroke and underlying Atrial Fibrillation (CRYSTAL-AF) (Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, Di Lazzaro V, Bernstein RA, Morillo CA, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2478-86), was identified, and no diagnostic test accuracy study was identified. The CRYSTAL-AF trial compared the Reveal™ XT (a Reveal LINQ predecessor) (Medtronic plc) monitor with standard of care monitoring. Twenty-six single-arm observational studies for the Reveal devices were also identified. The only data for BioMonitor 2-AF or Confirm Rx were from mixed population studies supplied by the companies. Atrial fibrillation detection in the CRYSTAL-AF trial was higher with the Reveal XT than with standard monitoring at all time points. By 36 months, atrial fibrillation was detected in 19% of patients with an implantable cardiac monitor and in 2.3% of patients receiving conventional follow-up. The 26 observational studies demonstrated that, even in a cryptogenic stroke population, atrial fibrillation detection rates are highly variable and most cases are asymptomatic; therefore, they probably would not have been picked up without an implantable cardiac monitor. Device-related adverse events, such as pain and infection, were low in all studies. The de novo economic model produced incremental cost effectiveness ratios comparing implantable cardiac monitors with standard of care monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke patients based on data for the Reveal XT device, which can be related to Reveal LINQ. The BioMonitor 2-AF and Confirm RX were included in the analysis by making a strong assumption of equivalence with Reveal LINQ. The results indicate that implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000-30,000 threshold. When each device is compared incrementally, BioMonitor 2-AF dominates Reveal LINQ and Confirm RX. LIMITATIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis for implantable cardiac monitors is based on a strong assumption of clinical equivalence and should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: All three implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000-30,000 threshold, compared with standard of care monitoring, for cryptogenic stroke patients with no atrial fibrillation detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring; however, further clinical studies are required to confirm their efficacy in cryptogenic stroke patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018109216. 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. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An abnormal heart rhythm (atrial fibrillation) is an important cause of stroke. Clots form in the heart, break off, pass into blood vessels in the head and block the blood supply to parts of the brain. This is important to diagnose because atrial fibrillation can be treated with blood-thinning drugs, which can prevent further stroke. For this reason, all patients with stroke are tested for atrial fibrillation. Unfortunately, the standard tests, which include 24 hours of outpatient external heart monitoring, may miss the condition. Implantable cardiac monitors, which are small devices placed beneath the skin of the chest that can monitor the heart for up to 4 years, may be better than the standard tests. This study compared three different implantable cardiac monitors [BioMonitor 2-AF™ (Biotronik SE & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), Confirm Rx™ (Abbott Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and Reveal LINQ™ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] to determine how effective they are at detecting atrial fibrillation in people who have had a cryptogenic stroke (a stroke for which no cause is identified), whether or not they are better than standard monitoring and whether or not they offer good value for money. No evidence was found that directly compared the three implantable monitors in cryptogenic stroke patients. The limited evidence found suggested that all three monitors had few side effects; only one monitor (Reveal LINQ) had evidence that it was better than standard monitoring. By 36 months, 19% of patients had atrial fibrillation detected by Reveal LINQ compared with only 2.3% with conventional monitoring. There was insufficient information for the other monitors. Overall, implantable monitors offer value for money when compared with standard monitoring for people who have had a cryptogenic stroke and for whom atrial fibrillation has not been detected with standard tests.

Dinutuximab Beta for Treating Neuroblastoma: An Evidence Review Group and Decision Support Unit 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 (EUSA Pharma) of dinutuximab beta (Qarziba®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for treating neuroblastoma. The BMJ Technology Assessment Group (BMJ-TAG) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), reviewing the submission from the company. The Decision Support Unit (DSU) was commissioned to review additional evidence submitted by the company and to undertake further analyses. This article presents the critical review of the company's submissions by the ERG and DSU, further analyses undertaken by the DSU, and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical effectiveness for dinutuximab beta was derived from a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of interleukin (IL)-2 to dinutuximab beta plus isotretinoin. This trial did not inform the relative effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin alone, which was established practice in the UK for maintenance treatment. In the absence of direct evidence, the company initially conducted a naïve indirect treatment comparison against a historical control, and later performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) against the isotretinoin arm of an RCT comparing dinutuximab alpha and isotretinoin. The company submitted a partitioned survival analysis model that calculated the incremental cost effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin. The company's original incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £22,338 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. However, the ERG were concerned that the company's ICER was not suitable for decision making, and thus carried out initial exploratory analysis as a first step to overcome the naïve estimation of treatment effectiveness in the model. The ERG's analysis estimated an ICER of £111,858 per QALY gained. In their revised analysis incorporating the MAIC and other changes as requested by the appraisal committee, the company's ICER was £24,661 per QALY gained. When the DSU incorporated longer-term isotretinoin data and made corrections to the model, the ICER increased to between £62,886 and £87,164 per QALY gained depending on the choice of survival model. A confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) decreased the ICERs. The ICERs with the PAS were over £40,000 per QALY gained, but the NICE committee additionally considered the patient population and its size, the disease severity, the potential for significant survival benefit and uncaptured health benefits, and recommended dinutuximab beta as a treatment option, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

VivaScope® 1500 and 3000 systems for detecting and monitoring skin lesions: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with suspicious skin lesions are first examined with a dermoscope. After examination, those with non-cancerous lesions are discharged, but lesions that are still considered clinically suspicious are surgically removed. VivaScope(®) is a non-invasive technology designed to be used in conjunction with dermoscopy to provide a more accurate diagnosis, leading to fewer biopsies of benign lesions or to provide more accurate presurgical margins reducing the risk of cancer recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VivaScope(®) 1500 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA; Lucid Inc., Rochester, NY, USA; or Lucid Inc., MAVIG GmbH, Munich, Germany) and VivaScope(®) 3000 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA) in the diagnosis of equivocal skin lesions, and VivaScope 3000 in lesion margin delineation prior to surgical excision of lesions. DATA SOURCES: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched on 14 October 2014, reference lists of included papers were assessed and clinical experts were contacted for additional information on published and unpublished studies. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies evaluating dermoscopy plus VivaScope, or VivaScope alone, with histopathology as the reference test. A probabilistic de novo economic model was developed to synthesise the available data on costs and clinical outcomes from the UK NHS perspective. All costs were expressed as 2014 prices. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the review, but they were too heterogeneous to be combined in a meta-analysis. One of two diagnostic studies that were deemed most representative of UK clinical practice reported that dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 was significantly more sensitive than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of melanoma (97.8% vs. 94.6%; p = 0.043) and significantly more specific than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of non-melanoma (92.4% vs. 26.74%; p < 0.000001). The results of another study suggest 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.16% to 100%] sensitivity for dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 versus 100% (95% CI 91.51% to 100%) for dermoscopy alone. Specificity varied from 51.77% to 80.2% depending on the analysis set used. In terms of margin delineation with VivaScope, one study found that 17 out of 29 patients with visible lentigo maligna (LM) had subclinical disease of > 5 mm beyond the dermoscopically identified margin. Using 'optimistic' diagnostic data, the economic model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8877 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (£9362 per QALY), while the 'less favourable' diagnostic data resulted in an ICER of £19,095 per QALY (£25,453 per QALY) in the diagnosis of suspected melanomas. VivaScope was also shown to be a dominant strategy when used for the diagnostic assessment of suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Regarding margin delineation of LM, mapping with VivaScope was cost-effective, with an ICER of £10,241 per QALY (£11,651 per QALY). However, when VivaScope was used for diagnosis as well as mapping of LM, then the intervention cost was reduced and VivaScope became a dominant strategy. LIMITATIONS: There is an absence of UK data in the included studies and, therefore, generalisability of the results to the UK population is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VivaScope appears to be a cost-effective strategy in the diagnostic assessment of equivocal melanomas and BCCs, and in margin delineation of LM prior to surgical treatment. FUTURE WORK: High-quality RCTs are required in a UK population to assess the diagnostic accuracy of VivaScope in people with equivocal lesions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014433. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of anogenital warts: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Typically occurring on the external genitalia, anogenital warts (AGWs) are benign epithelial skin lesions caused by human papillomavirus infection. AGWs are usually painless but can be unsightly and physically uncomfortable, and affected people might experience psychological distress. The evidence base on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for AGWs is limited. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments for AGWs and to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) were searched from inception (or January 2000 for Web of Science) to September 2014. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify potentially relevant studies. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing and planned studies. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out according to standard methods and a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) undertaken. The model implemented for each outcome was that with the lowest deviance information criterion. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model structure was informed through a systematic review of the economic literature and in consultation with clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the MTC. Costs were obtained from the literature and standard UK sources. RESULTS: Of 4232 titles and abstracts screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness, 60 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 19 interventions were included. Analysis by MTC indicated that ablative techniques were typically more effective than topical interventions at completely clearing AGWs at the end of treatment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (Condyline(®), Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Warticon(®) solution, Stiefel Laboratories Ltd) was found to be the most effective topical treatment evaluated. Networks for other outcomes included fewer treatments, which restrict conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In total, 84 treatment strategies were assessed using the economic model. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution first line followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) laser therapy second line if AGWs did not clear was most likely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources at a willingness to pay of £20,000-30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. The result was robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted. LIMITATIONS: Limited reporting in identified studies of baseline characteristics for the enrolled population generates uncertainty around the comparability of the study populations and therefore the generalisability of the results to clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were planned based on type, number and size of AGWs, all of which are factors thought to influence treatment effect. Lack of data on clinical effectiveness based on these characteristics precluded analysis of the differential effects of treatments in the subgroups of interest. Despite identification of 60 studies, most comparisons in the MTC are informed by only one RCT. Additionally, lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing key treatments, together with minimal reporting of results in some studies, precluded comprehensive analysis of all treatments for AGWs. CONCLUSIONS: The results generated by the MTC are in agreement with consensus opinion that ablative techniques are clinically more effective at completely clearing AGWs after treatment. However, the evidence base informing the MTC is limited. A head-to-head RCT that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of interventions used in clinical practice would help to discern the potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual treatments. The results of the economic analysis suggest that podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution is likely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment option. More expensive effective treatments, such as CO2 laser therapy or surgery, may represent cost-effective second-line treatment options. No treatment and podophyllin are unlikely to be considered cost-effective treatment options. There is uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of treatment with imiquimod, trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005457. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The use of fibrin sealant during non-emergency surgery: a systematic review of evidence of benefits and harms.

BACKGROUND: Fibrin sealants are used in different types of surgery to prevent the accumulation of post-operative fluid (seroma) or blood (haematoma) or to arrest haemorrhage (bleeding). However, there is uncertainty around the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the benefits and harms of fibrin sealants in non-emergency surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases [MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)] were searched from inception to May 2015. The websites of regulatory bodies (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration) were also searched to identify evidence of harms. REVIEW METHODS: This review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using any type of fibrin sealant compared with standard care in non-emergency surgery in adults. The primary outcome was risk of developing seroma and haematoma. Only RCTs were used to inform clinical effectiveness and both RCTs and observational studies were used for the assessment of harms related to the use of fibrin sealant. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and validated by a second. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for adverse events for observational studies. A fixed-effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 186 RCTs and eight observational studies across 14 surgical specialties and five reports from the regulatory bodies. Most RCTs were judged to be at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were inappropriately reported in observational studies. Meta-analysis across non-emergency surgical specialties did not show a statistically significant difference in the risk of seroma for fibrin sealants versus standard care in 32 RCTs analysed [n = 3472, odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.04; p = 0.13; I2 = 12.7%], but a statistically significant benefit was found on haematoma development in 24 RCTs (n = 2403, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Adverse events related to fibrin sealant use were reported in 10 RCTs and eight observational studies across surgical specialties, and 22 RCTs explicitly stated that there were no adverse events. One RCT reported a single death but no other study reported mortality or any serious adverse events. Five regulatory body reports noted death from air emboli associated with fibrin sprays. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to provide a detailed evaluation of individual RCTs in their specific contexts because of the limited resources that were available for this research. In addition, the number of RCTs that were identified made it impractical to conduct independent data extraction by two reviewers in the time available. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of fibrin sealants does not appear to vary according to surgical procedures with regard to reducing the risk of seroma or haematoma. Surgeons should note the potential risk of gas embolism if spray application of fibrin sealants is used and not to exceed the recommended pressure and spraying distance. Future research should be carried out in surgery specialties for which only limited data were found, including neurological, gynaecological, oral and maxillofacial, urology, colorectal and orthopaedics surgery (for any outcome); breast surgery and upper gastrointestinal (development of haematoma); and cardiothoracic heart or lung surgery (reoperation rates). In addition, studies need to use adequate sample sizes, to blind participants and outcome assessors, and to follow reporting guidelines. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020710. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Dual-chamber pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome without atrioventricular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Bradycardia [resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute (b.p.m.)] can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart, such as sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular (AV) blocks. People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations, exercise intolerance and fainting. The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker. OBJECTIVE: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block. DATA SOURCES: All databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched from inception to June 2014. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out in accordance with the general principles published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual-chamber and single-chamber atrial pacemakers and economic evaluations were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: Of 493 references, six RCTs were included in the review. The results were predominantly influenced by the largest trial DANPACE. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a statistically significant reduction in reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.63] compared with single-chamber atrial pacing. The difference is primarily because of the development of AV block requiring upgrade to a dual-chamber device. The risk of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was also reduced with dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber atrial pacing (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality, heart failure, stroke, chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life. However, the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device. The de novo economic model shows that dual-chamber pacemakers are more expensive and more effective than single-chamber atrial devices, resulting in a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6506. The ICER remains below £20,000 in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, structural sensitivity analysis and most scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses. The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers. Results from an analysis based on age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers (i.e. are less expensive and more effective) in older patients, whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by (i.e. more expensive and less effective) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients. However, these results are based on a subgroup analysis and should be treated with caution. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction, dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers. The risk of developing a complete AV block and the lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of developing the condition argue for the implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker programmed to minimise unnecessary ventricular pacing. However, considerations have to be made around the risk of developing heart failure, which may depend on age and device. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006708. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated. LIMITATIONS: As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease. CONCLUSIONS: For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Clinical effectiveness of interventions for treatment-resistant anxiety in older people: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and related disorders include generalised anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and phobic disorders (intense fear of an object or situation). These disorders share the psychological and physical symptoms of anxiety, but each disorder has its own set of characteristic symptoms. Anxiety disorders can be difficult to recognise, particularly in older people (those aged over 65 years). Older people tend to be more reluctant to discuss mental health issues and there is the perception that older people are generally more worried than younger adults. It is estimated that between 3 and 14 out of every 100 older people have an anxiety disorder. Despite treatment, some people will continue to have symptoms of anxiety. People are generally considered to be 'resistant' or 'refractory' to treatment if they have an inadequate response or do not respond to their first treatment. Older adults with an anxiety disorder find it difficult to manage their day-to-day lives and are at an increased risk of comorbid depression, falls, physical and functional disability, and loneliness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological and alternative therapies in older adults with an anxiety disorder who have not responded, or have responded inadequately, to treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases, PsycINFO and Web of Science) were searched from inception to September 2013. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify additional potentially relevant studies. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for ongoing and planned studies. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of treatments for treatment-resistant anxiety in older adults was carried out. RESULTS: No randomised controlled trial or prospective comparative observational study was identified meeting the prespecified inclusion criteria. Therefore, it was not possible to draw any conclusions on clinical effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: As no study was identified in older adults, there is uncertainty as to which treatments are clinically effective for older adults with an anxiety disorder who have not responded to prior treatment. The comprehensive methods implemented to carry out this review are a key strength of the research presented. However, this review highlights the extreme lack of research in this area, identifying no comparative studies, which is a marked limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Specific studies evaluating interventions in older adults with an anxiety disorder who have not responded to first-line treatment are needed to address the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence in this area means that older adults are perhaps receiving inappropriate treatment or are not receiving a particular treatment because there is limited evidence to support its use. At this time there is scope to develop guidance on service provision and, as a consequence, to advance the standard of care received by older adults with a treatment-resistant anxiety disorder in primary and secondary care. Evaluation of the relative clinical effectiveness and acceptability of pharmacological and psychological treatment in older adults with an anxiety disorder that has not responded to first-line treatment is key future research to inform decision-making of clinicians and patients. An important consideration would be the enrolment of older adults who would be representative of older adults in general, i.e. those with multiple comorbid physical and mental disorders who might require polypharmacy. STUDY REGISTRATION: The protocol for the systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42013005612). FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Treating pneumonia in critical care in the United Kingdom following failure of initial antibiotic: a cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with piperacillin/tazobactam.

BACKGROUND: Treating patients admitted to critical care with severe pneumonia requires timely intervention with an effective antibiotic. This reduces the risk of dying of pneumonia and minimises complications associated with a prolonged stay in critical care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of meropenem 1 g/8 h with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g/8 h for treating pneumonia in UK critical care. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam to treat severe pneumonia. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to address uncertainty in the model results. RESULTS: Cost of treating a patient with severe pneumonia was estimated as £19,026 with meropenem and £19,978 with piperacillin/tazobactam, respectively. QALYs gained were 4.768 with meropenem and 4.654 with piperacillin/tazobactam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be consistently less costly and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam. CONCLUSION: The additional efficacy of meropenem translates into more patients surviving critical care and leaving this high-cost service more quickly than if they had been treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. As meropenem is more effective and less expensive than piperacillin/tazobactam at treating patients with severe pneumonia, it is the dominant treatment option.

Cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care.

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of meropenem with that of imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in hospital intensive care in the UK. A Markov model was constructed to model lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem and imipenem plus cilastatin for the treatment of severe infections in intensive care. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Estimated treatment costs for the patient cohort were pound 14,938 with meropenem and pound 15,585 with imipenem plus cilastatin. QALYs gained were 7,495 with meropenem and 7,413 with imipenem plus cilastatin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be significantly less costly (-pound 636.47, 95% CI -pound 132.33 to -pound 1,140.62) and more effective (0.084, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.144). Meropenem thus appears significantly more effective and less expensive than imipenem plus cilastatin and should therefore be considered the dominant treatment strategy.

A review of the clinical and economic impact of using esomeprazole or lansoprazole for the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of erosive esophagitis has had a major impact on the prescribing budgets of primary care organizations in the United Kingdom. Assessments of the clinical and economic effectiveness of PPIs would provide useful tools for decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to review the available preclinical and clinical studies comparing esomeprazole with lansoprazole in the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis, and to compare the budgeting impact of the 2 strategies. Comparative tolerability was also reviewed. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-September 2002) and EMBASE (1980-September 2002) were searched for abstracts and articles reporting comparative studies of esomeprazole and lansoprazole. The search terms used were gastroesophageal reflux disease, reflux esophagitis, and proton pump inhibitor; all comparisons of esomeprazole and lansoprazole at any dose were considered. The database search was supplemented based on the authors' familiarity with the literature. RESULTS: The comparative studies that were identified fell into 4 categories: (1) intragastric acid suppression studies; (2) randomized controlled trials in the healing of erosive esophagitis; (3) randomized controlled trials in the maintenance of erosive esophagitis; and (4) health economic analyses. Based on these studies, when healing doses (esomeprazole 40 mg once daily, lansoprazole 30 mg once daily) and low doses (20 and 15 mg once daily, respectively) were compared, esomeprazole was more efficacious than lansoprazole in suppressing acid in the intragastric compartment (both comparisons, P < 0.05). More patients with erosive esophagitis experienced healing at 4 and 8 weeks with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily than with lansoprazole 30 mg once daily (P < 0.001 at 4 and 8 weeks). At 6 months, remission was maintained in more patients receiving esomeprazole 20 mg once daily than in those receiving lansoprazole 15 mg once daily (P < 0.001). No significant differences in tolerability were noted in clinical trials that directly compared the 2 PPIs. When the cost-effectiveness of esomeprazole treatment was compared with that of lansoprazole treatment in the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis, the greater efficacy of esomeprazole translated into potential cost savings and better outcomes. CONCLUSION: The currently available comparative data for esomeprazole and lansoprazole indicate clinical and cost-effectiveness advantages for esomeprazole in the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis compared with lansoprazole.