Tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are typically used when the inflammatory rheumatologic diseases ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-AxSpA) have not responded adequately to conventional therapy. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends treatment with adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab in adults with active (severe) AS only if certain criteria are fulfilled but it does not recommend infliximab for AS. Anti-TNFs for patients with nr-AxSpA have not previously been appraised by NICE. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness within the NHS of adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab, within their licensed indications, for the treatment of severe active AS or severe nr-AxSpA (but with objective signs of inflammation). DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES: Fifteen databases were searched for relevant studies in July 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Clinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Results from other studies were summarised narratively. Only full economic evaluations that compared two or more options and considered both costs and consequences were included in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. The differences in the approaches and assumptions used across the studies, and also those in the manufacturer's submissions, were examined in order to explain any discrepancies in the findings and to identify key areas of uncertainty. A de novo decision model was developed with a generalised framework for evidence synthesis that pooled change in disease activity (BASDAI and BASDAI 50) and simultaneously synthesised information on function (BASFI) to determine the long-term quality-adjusted life-year and cost burden of the disease in the economic model. The decision model was developed in accordance with the NICE reference case. The model has a lifetime horizon (60 years) and considers costs from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services. Health effects were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: In total, 28 eligible RCTs were identified and 26 were placebo controlled (mostly up to 12 weeks); 17 extended into open-label active treatment-only phases. Most RCTs were judged to have a low risk of bias overall. In both AS and nr-AxSpA populations, anti-TNFs produced clinically important benefits to patients in terms of improving function and reducing disease activity; for AS, the relative risks for ASAS 40 ranged from 2.53 to 3.42. The efficacy estimates were consistently slightly smaller for nr-AxSpA than for AS. Statistical (and clinical) heterogeneity was more apparent in the nr-AxSpA analyses than in the AS analyses; both the reliability of the nr-AxSpA meta-analysis results and their true relevance to patients seen in clinical practice are questionable. In AS, anti-TNFs are approximately equally effective. Effectiveness appears to be maintained over time, with around 50% of patients still responding at 2 years. Evidence for an effect of anti-TNFs delaying disease progression was limited; results from ongoing long-term studies should help to clarify this issue. Sequential treatment with anti-TNFs can be worthwhile but the drug survival response rates and benefits are reduced with second and third anti-TNFs. The de novo model, which addressed many of the issues of earlier evaluations, generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from £19,240 to £66,529 depending on anti-TNF and modelling assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: In both AS and nr-AxSpA populations anti-TNFs are clinically effective, although more so in AS than in nr-AxSpA. Anti-TNFs may be an effective use of NHS resources depending on which assumptions are considered appropriate. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Randomised trials are needed to identify the nr-AxSpA population who will benefit the most from anti-TNFs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010182. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients: a systematic review and economic model with a value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) can occur in surgical patients. Routine prophylaxis can be pharmacological and/or mechanical [e.g. graduated compression stockings (GCSs)]. GCSs are available in knee length or thigh length. OBJECTIVE: To establish the expected value of undertaking additional research addressing the relative effectiveness of thigh-length GCSs versus knee-length GCSs, in addition to pharmacoprophylaxis, for prevention of DVT in surgical patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model, including value of information (VOI) analysis. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing thigh- or knee-length GCSs in surgical patients were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. DVT complications and GCSs adverse events were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. To draw on a wider evidence base, a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was undertaken for the outcome DVT. A review of trials and observational studies of patient adherence was also conducted. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of thigh- and knee-length GCSs and the VOI. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs were included in the review of effectiveness. There was substantial variation between trials in terms of the patient characteristics, interventions and methods of outcome assessment. Five trials comparing knee-length with thigh-length GCSs with or without pharmacoprophylaxis were pooled; the summary estimate of effect indicated a non-significant trend favouring thigh-length GCSs [odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 2.73]. Thirteen trials were included in the NMA. In the base-case analysis, thigh-length GCSs with pharmacoprophylaxis were more effective than knee-length GCSs with pharmacoprophylaxis (knee vs. thigh OR 1.76, 95% credible interval 0.82 to 3.53). Overall, thigh-length stockings with pharmacoprophylaxis was the most effective treatment, with a 0.73 probability of being the most effective treatment in a new trial of all the treatments. Patient adherence was generally higher with knee-length GCSs, and patients preferred knee-length GCSs. Thigh-length GCSs were found to be cost-effective in all but the subgroup with the lowest baseline risk, although the absolute differences in costs and effects were relatively small. The expected value of perfect information ranged from £0.2M to £178.0M depending on the scenario and subgroup. The relative effect parameters had the highest expected value of partial perfect information and ranged from £2.0M to £39.4M. The value of further research was most evident in the high-risk subgroups. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial variation across the included trials in terms of patient and intervention characteristics. Many of the included trials were old and poorly reported, which reduces the reliability of the results of the review. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the results from both the standard meta-analysis and the NMA lacked precision (CIs were wide) owing to the heterogeneous evidence base, a new definitive trial in high-risk patients may be warranted. However, the efficiency of any further research (i.e. whether this represents value for money) is dependent on several factors, including the acquisition price of GCSs, expected compliance with thigh-length GCSs wear, and whether or not uncertainty can be resolved around possible effect modifiers, as well as the feasibility and actual cost of undertaking the proposed research. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014007202. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK. DESIGN: Rapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process. RESULTS: 17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5-3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.

An overview and methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of enhanced recovery programmes in colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect. DESIGN: Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process. RESULTS: 10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5 days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.