Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

Trends in antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in England: cohort study using 2000-19 primary care data.

BACKGROUND: The prescription of antipsychotics to children and adolescents has been increasing worldwide. We described up-to-date trends in antipsychotic prescribing and identified likely indications in a contemporary English cohort. METHODS: We used a large primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database, and we included all children and adolescents aged 3-18 years in the database and registered in England between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2019, excluding those whose gender was recorded as indeterminate. Participants were followed up until the earliest of Dec 31, 2019, June 30 of the year they turned 18 years, their death, when they transferred from the primary care practice, or when the practice left the database. Data were not collected on ethnicity. We recorded antipsychotic prescriptions using the date a prescription was issued. As CPRD prescriptions are not linked to indications, we developed an algorithm to ascertain the most likely indication associated with participants' first antipsychotic prescription using clinical codes. We reported prescribing trends as annual period prevalence and the rate of first antipsychotic prescription, and we used joinpoint regression analysis to identify changes in the outcome trend. We stratified prevalence estimates by age group, gender, and Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles, we reported frequencies of likely indications associated with incident prescriptions, and we explored clinical preference for typical versus atypical antipsychotics within deprivation quintiles. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2019, we included 7 216 791 children and adolescents, of whom 3 480 730 (48·2%) were girls and 3 736 061 (51·8%) were boys, with a mean age at the start of follow-up of 7·3 years (SD 4·9; range 3-18). Median follow-up was 4·1 years (IQR 1·5-8·5). 19 496 (0·3%) individuals received 243 529 antipsychotic prescriptions over follow-up, including 225 710 (92·7%) atypical and 17 819 (7·3%) typical antipsychotic prescriptions. The annual period prevalence of antipsychotic prescriptions rose from 0·057% (95% CI 0·052-0·063%) in 2000 to 0·105% (0·100-0·111%) in 2019. From joinpoint analyses, the period prevalence of all antipsychotic prescriptions increased by an average of 3·3% per year (2·2-4·9%) and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2·2% per year (1·7-2·7%). The most likely indications of the first identified antipsychotic prescriptions were for autism spectrum disorder (2477 [12·7%]), non-affective psychosis (1669 [8·6%]), anxiety disorders (1466 [7·5%]), ADHD (1391 [7·1%]), depression (1256 [6·4%]), and conduct disorders (1181 [6·1%]). INTERPRETATION: The observed increase in antipsychotic prescriptions over 20 years results from the accumulation of repeated prescriptions to the same individuals combined with an increase in new prescriptions. These findings highlight the need for continued monitoring of trends in antipsychotic use and, although this was not examined in this paper, the findings highlights the need for better information about long-term antipsychotic safety. FUNDING: None.

No association between breast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breast cancer diagnostic clinic.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast pain constitute >20% of breast clinic attendees. AIM: To investigate breast cancer incidence in women presenting with breast pain and establish the health economics of referring women with breast pain to secondary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective cohort study of all consecutive women referred to a breast diagnostic clinic over 12 months. METHOD: Women were categorised by presentation into four distinct clinical groups and cancer incidence investigated. RESULTS: Of 10 830 women, 1972 (18%) were referred with breast pain, 6708 (62%) with lumps, 480 (4%) with nipple symptoms, 1670 (15%) with 'other' symptoms. Mammography, performed in 1112 women with breast pain, identified cancer in eight (0.7%). Of the 1972 women with breast pain, breast cancer incidence was 0.4% compared with ∼5% in each of the three other clinical groups. Using 'breast lump' as reference, the odds ratio (OR) of women referred with breast pain having breast cancer was 0.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.09, P<0.001). Compared with reassurance in primary care, referral was more costly (net cost £262) without additional health benefits (net quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] loss -0.012). The greatest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was when QALY loss because of referral-associated anxiety was excluded. Primary care reassurance no longer dominated, but the ICER remained greater (£45 528/QALY) than typical UK National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSION: This study shows that referring women with breast pain to a breast diagnostic clinic is an inefficient use of limited resources. Alternative management pathways could improve capacity and reduce financial burden.