Evidence on the effectiveness of policies promoting price transparency - A systematic review.

Policies promoting price transparency may be an important approach to control medicine prices and achieve better access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies promoting price transparency are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies promoting price transparency against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32011 records were retrieved, two of which were eligible for inclusion. Although based on evidence from a single study, public disclosure of medicine prices may be effective in reducing prices of medicines short-term, with benefits possibly sustained long-term. Evidence on the impact of a cost-feedback approach to prescribers was inconclusive. No evidence was found for impact on the outcomes volume, availability or affordability. The overall lack of evidence on policies promoting price transparency is a clear call for further research.

A systematic review of health state utility values for thyroid cancer.

PURPOSE: Health state utility values are commonly used to inform economic evaluations and determine the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the utility values available to represent the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to April 2019 for studies which included assessment of HRQoL for patients with thyroid cancer. Utility estimates derived from multiple sources (EuroQol questionnaire 5-dimension (EQ-5D), time trade-off [TTO] and standard gamble [SG] methods) were extracted. In addition, utility estimates were generated by mapping from SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 to the EQ-5D-3L UK value set using published mapping algorithms. RESULTS: Searches identified 33 eligible studies. Twenty-six studies reported HRQoL for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and seven studies for patients with general thyroid cancer. We identified studies which used different methods and tools to quantify the HRQoL in patients with thyroid cancer, such as the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, EORTC QLQ-30 and SG and TTO techniques to estimate utility values. Utility estimates range from 0.205 (patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer) to utility values approximate to the average UK population (following successful thyroidectomy surgery and radioiodine treatment). Utility estimates for different health states, across thyroid cancer sub-types and interventions are presented. CONCLUSION: A catalogue of utility values is provided for use when carrying out economic modelling of thyroid cancer; by including mapped values, this approach broadens the scope of health states that can be considered within cost-effectiveness modelling.

Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. RESULTS: The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. FUTURE WORK: Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. 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. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth, may come through the gum (erupt) without any problems, usually during young adulthood (aged 18­24 years). However, in some cases they are unable to erupt because they are poorly aligned or obstructed by other teeth, gums or bone. They are then referred to as 'impacted'. Historically, dentists often recommended that these teeth be removed, so as not to cause problems later in life. This is referred to as 'prophylactic' removal. In 2000, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviewed this practice and recommended that these teeth should not be removed if they are not bothersome to the person. Many dentists and oral surgeons have disagreed with this decision, believing that it is more difficult to remove these teeth later in life, and that there are more complications for the patient if they are removed later in life. Our review group carried out a systematic review of the available clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of the prophylactic removal of impacted third molars. The review identified four clinical studies, none of which provided strong evidence for or against the prophylactic removal of these teeth. These findings are similar to those of nine previous reviews. There is also very little research reported that relates to the cost-effectiveness of the procedure, with only three studies identified. With the available evidence on the rates of extraction and the symptoms experienced by people who keep their impacted mandibular third molar, we built an exploratory economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of recommending prophylactic removal compared with that of recommending watchful waiting. Results from the model suggested that a prophylactic removal strategy costs more than a watchful waiting strategy, but leads to improvements in quality of life. When the costs and quality-of-life measures that are associated with the two strategies are compared, the resulting statistic is £11,741 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, which would probably be good value for money for the NHS.

Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: This work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care. METHODS: A systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included. RESULTS: Overall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients with an irregular pulse using single time point testing: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can be used to detect AF at a single time point in people who present with relevant signs or symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of using single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people presenting to primary care with relevant signs or symptoms, and who have an irregular pulse compared with using manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database. METHODS: The systematic review methods followed published guidance. Two reviewers screened the search results (database inception to April 2018), extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. An economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices. RESULTS: No studies were identified that evaluated the use of lead-I ECG devices for patients with signs or symptoms of AF. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact results presented are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.2% to 97.4%] and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI 90.4% to 98.8%). One study reported limited clinical outcome data. Acceptability of lead-I ECG devices was reported in four studies, with generally positive views. The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generated ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile (AliveCor Ltd, Mountain View, CA, USA) is the most cost-effective option in a full incremental analysis. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the population of interest are available. CONCLUSIONS: Single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appear to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care, given the assumptions used in the base-case model. FUTURE WORK: Studies assessing how the use of lead-I ECG devices in this population affects the number of people diagnosed with AF when compared with current practice would be useful. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018090375. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of abnormal heart rhythm. People with AF are more likely to have a serious stroke or die than people without the condition. Many people go to their general practitioner (GP) with the signs or symptoms commonly linked to AF, such as feeling dizzy, being short of breath, feeling tired and having heart palpitations. GPs check for AF by taking the patient's pulse by hand. If the GP thinks that the patient might have AF, a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) test is arranged. Lead-I (i.e. one lead) ECGs are handheld electronic devices that could detect AF more accurately than a manual pulse check. If GPs were to routinely use lead-I ECG devices, people with suspected AF could receive treatment while waiting for the AF diagnosis to be confirmed by a 12-lead ECG. This study aimed to assess whether or not the use of lead-I ECGs in GP surgeries could benefit these patients and offer good value for money to the NHS. All studies that examined how well lead-I ECGs identified people with AF were reviewed, and the economic value of using these devices was assessed. No evidence was found that examined the use of lead-I ECGs for people with signs or symptoms of AF. As an alternative, evidence for the use of lead-I ECGs for people with no symptoms of AF was searched for and these data were used to assess value for money. The study found that using a manual pulse check followed by a lead-I ECG offers value for money when compared with a manual pulse check followed by a 12-lead ECG. This is mostly because patients with AF can begin treatment earlier when a GP has access to a lead-I ECG device.

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients attending primary care with an irregular pulse using single-time point testing: A systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can detect AF at a single-time point. PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost effectiveness of single-time point lead-I ECG devices compared with manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG for the detection of AF in symptomatic primary care patients with an irregular pulse. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed study quality. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy The diagnostic accuracy (13 publications reporting on nine studies) and clinical impact (24 publications reporting on 19 studies) results are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.2% to 97.4%) and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI: 90.4% to 98.8%). Cost effectiveness The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generate ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-£30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile is the most cost effective option in a full incremental analysis. Lead-I ECG tests may identify more AF cases than the standard diagnostic pathway. This comes at a higher cost but with greater patient benefit in terms of mortality and quality of life. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the target population are available. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single-time point lead-I ECG devices in primary care for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appears to be a cost effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG, given the assumptions used in the base case model. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018090375.

Cladribine Tablets for the First-Line Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Merck to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cladribine tablets (cladribine) for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Rapidly evolving severe (RES) and sub-optimally treated (SOT) RRMS were specified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as subgroups of interest. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group. This article summarises the Evidence Review Group's review of the company's evidence submission for cladribine and the Appraisal Committee's final decision. The final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence listed the following disease-modifying treatments as comparators: alemtuzumab, daclizumab, fingolimod and natalizumab. At the time of the company submission, a licence was anticipated for low-dose cladribine. The main clinical evidence (the CLARITY trial) in the company submission focused on the efficacy of low-dose cladribine vs. placebo. The CLARITY trial showed a statistically significant reduction in relapse rate for cladribine in the RES-RRMS subgroup (n = 50) but not in the SOT-RRMS subgroup (n = 19). Cladribine showed a numerical, but not a statistically significant, advantage in delaying disability progression at 6 months in the RES-RRMS subgroup. Disability progression benefits could not be estimated for those in the SOT-RRMS subgroup because of few events. The Evidence Review Group's main concern regarding the clinical evidence was the small sample size of the subgroups. To compare the effectiveness of cladribine to other disease-modifying treatments, the company conducted network meta-analyses, which showed cladribine and its comparators to be equally effective. The Evidence Review Group considered the results of the disease-modifying treatments to be unreliable because few trials were in the network. The company's cost-effectiveness evidence showed cladribine to be cheaper and more effective than other disease-modifying treatments in the RES-RRMS arm and the SOT-RRMS arm. The results were most sensitive to treatment effect on disability progression at 6 months. The Evidence Review Group was concerned that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that cladribine was superior to placebo in delaying disability progression. The Evidence Review Group amended the company's economic model to allow alternative estimates for the treatment effect of cladribine and its comparators on relapse rate and disability progression at 6 months. The Evidence Review Group made other changes to the company model. After implementing all the amendments, cladribine remained cost effective in the RES-RRMS and SOT-RRMS subgroups. The Appraisal Committee recognised the uncertainty in the available data but concluded that cladribine could be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.

Are acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions 'value for money'? Evidence from a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions (A/MBIs) are recommended for people with mental health conditions. Although there is a growing evidence base supporting the effectiveness of different A/MBIs for mental health conditions, the economic case for these interventions has not been fully explored. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and appraise all available economic evidence of A/MBIs for the management of mental health conditions. METHODS: Eight electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and EconLit) were searched for relevant economic evaluations published from each database's inception date until November 2017. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines. RESULTS: Ten relevant economic evaluations presented in 11 papers were identified. Seven of the included studies were full economic evaluations (i.e., costs and effects assessed), and three studies were partial economic evaluations (i.e., only costs were considered in the analysis). The A/MBIs that had been subjected to economic evaluation were acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). In terms of clinical presentations, the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs has been more focused on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder with three and four economic evaluations, respectively. Three out of seven full economic evaluations observed that A/MBIs were cost-effective for the management of mental health conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of included populations, interventions, and economic evaluation study types limits the extent to which firm conclusions can currently be made. CONCLUSION: This first substantive review of economic evaluations of A/MBIs indicates that more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs for mental health conditions. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The findings of the review provide information that may be relevant to mental health service commissioners and decision-makers as all economic evidence available on acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions for mental health conditions is summarized. Evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions is focused mainly on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder to date. Heterogeneity in the specific forms of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions may limit generalizability of the findings. The number of health economic evaluations relating to acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions remains relatively small. Further research in this area is required.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Pegylated Liposomal Irinotecan Hydrochloride Trihydrate for Treating Pancreatic Cancer After Gemcitabine: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Shire Pharmaceuticals) of pegylated liposomal irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate (liposomal irinotecan) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for its use in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folic acid/leucovorin (LV) for treating patients with pancreatic cancer following prior treatment with gemcitabine as part of the institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA440), issued on 26 April 2017. Clinical evidence for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV was derived from 236 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the multinational, open-label, randomised controlled NAPOLI-1 trial. Results from analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival showed statistically significant improvements for patients treated with liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV compared with those treated with 5-FU/LV. However, 5-FU/LV alone is rarely used in National Health Service clinical practice for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine. The company, ERG and Appraisal Committee (AC) all agreed that oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV is the most commonly used treatment. Oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was compared with 5-FU/LV in two trials identified by the company. However, the company and the ERG both considered attempts to compare the efficacy of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV to be methodologically flawed; not only was there heterogeneity between trials and their populations but also the proportional hazards assumption required to conduct a robust indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was violated. Nonetheless, data derived from an ITC were used to inform the company's economic model. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV, the company reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £54,412 for the comparison with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. The ERG considered that the company's base-case cost-effectiveness results for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were underestimates and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Following implementation of a number of model amendments, the ERG's modified exploratory ICER for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was £106,898 per QALY gained. The AC accepted the majority of the ERG's amendments to the model, and also highlighted that the total QALYs for oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were lower than for 5-FU/LV in the company's model, which the AC considered to be clinically implausible. The AC therefore considered results from exploratory analyses, undertaken by the ERG, which included altering the QALY difference between liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV by ± 10%. These analyses resulted in ICERs for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV of between £201,019 per QALY gained to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV being dominated by oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. Therefore, despite uncertainty around the clinical-effectiveness evidence and cost-effectiveness results, the AC was confident that the ICER was in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The final guidance issued by NICE is that liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV is not recommended within its marketing authorisation for treating metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in adults whose disease has progressed after gemcitabine-based therapy.

Talimogene Laherparepvec for Treating Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Amgen) of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's submission of T-VEC, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA410), issued in September 2016. T-VEC is an oncolytic virus therapy granted a marketing authorisation by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with unresectable melanoma that is regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a) with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. Clinical evidence for T-VEC versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was derived from the multinational, open-label randomised controlled OPTiM trial [Oncovex (GM-CSF) Pivotal Trial in Melanoma]. In accordance with T-VEC's marketing authorisation, the company's submission focused primarily on 249 patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease who constituted 57% of the overall trial population (T-VEC, n = 163 and GM-CSF, n = 86). Results from analyses of durable response rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure and overall survival all showed marked and statistically significant improvements for patients treated with T-VEC compared with those treated with GM-CSF. However, GM-CSF is not used to treat melanoma in clinical practice. It was not possible to compare treatment with T-VEC with an appropriate comparator using conventionally accepted methods due to the absence of comparative head-to-head data or trials with sufficient common comparators. Therefore, the company compared T-VEC with ipilimumab using what it described as modified Korn and two-step Korn methods. Results from these analyses suggested that treatment with T-VEC was at least as effective as treatment with ipilimumab. Using the discounted patient access scheme (PAS) price for T-VEC and list price for ipilimumab, the company reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the comparison of treatment with T-VEC versus ipilimumab, the ICER per QALY gained was -£16,367 using the modified Korn method and -£60,271 using the two-step Korn method. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) agreed with the ERG that the company's methods for estimating clinical effectiveness of T-VEC versus ipilimumab were flawed and therefore produced unreliable results for modelling progression in stage IIIB to stage IVM1a melanoma. The AC concluded that the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment with T-VEC compared with ipilimumab is unknown in patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease. However, the AC considered that T-VEC may be a reasonable option for treating patients who are unsuitable for treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies (such as ipilimumab). T-VEC was therefore recommended by NICE as a treatment option for adults with unresectable, regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB to stage IVM1a) melanoma that has not spread to bone, brain, lung or other internal organs, only if treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies is not suitable and the company provides T-VEC at the agreed discounted PAS price.

Automated tests for diagnosing and monitoring cognitive impairment: a diagnostic accuracy review.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a growing public health concern, and is one of the most distinctive characteristics of all dementias. The timely recognition of dementia syndromes can be beneficial, as some causes of dementia are treatable and are fully or partially reversible. Several automated cognitive assessment tools for assessing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia are now available. Proponents of these tests cite as benefits the tests' repeatability and robustness and the saving of clinicians' time. However, the use of these tools to diagnose and/or monitor progressive cognitive impairment or response to treatment has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine whether or not automated computerised tests could accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment in MCI and dementia and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science and PsycINFO), plus ProQuest, were searched from 2005 to August 2015. The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Trial and research registers were searched for ongoing studies and reviews. A second search was run to identify individual test costs and acquisition costs for the various tools identified in the review. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias by one reviewer and independently checked for accuracy by a second. The results of the data extraction and quality assessment for each study are presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. RESULTS: The electronic searching of databases, including ProQuest, resulted in 13,542 unique citations. The titles and abstracts of these were screened and 399 articles were shortlisted for full-text assessment. Sixteen studies were included in the diagnostic accuracy review. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease. Eleven automated computerised tests were assessed in the 16 included studies. The overall quality of the studies was good; however, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that meaningful synthesis or statistical analysis was not possible. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this review is the substantial heterogeneity of the tests assessed in the included studies. As a result, no meta-analyses could be undertaken. CONCLUSION: The quantity of information available is insufficient to be able to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing and monitoring MCI and early dementia progression. The value of these tests also depends on the costs of acquisition, training, administration and scoring. FUTURE WORK: Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests that are used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia. Additionally, the costs associated with acquiring and using these tests in clinical practice should be estimated. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025410. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. RESULTS: Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. LIMITATIONS: There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.