Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for 'Living HTA' where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

Housing With Care for Older People: A Scoping Review Using the CASP Assessment Tool to Inform Optimal Design.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize and map available evidence on the design of "housing with care" (HWC) schemes to inform design decisions built on objective data from previous research, which is key to ensuring such schemes are fit for purpose for older people. BACKGROUND: HWC is becoming increasingly recognized as a model for developing housing schemes for older people and balances independent living with elevated levels of care. However, as this scheme is still relatively novel, there are currently no established theoretical frameworks to inform design. METHODS: Scoping review, thematic analysis, and mapping methods were used to comprehensively search for and synthesize evidence that links design with assessments of quality-of-life data for HWC schemes. Study findings for each included paper were subject to data extraction for inductive analysis, and the quality of each study was assessed using a modified critical appaisal skills programme (CASP) checklist. RESULTS: Our searches yielded 821 unique references, of which 18 unique articles met the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were the design considerations or features in HWC schemes and their impact on the residents. The main themes identified were related to design element, accessibility, maneuverability, views, design procedure, and quality of life (QOL). Further subthemes identified across papers were identified to create a comprehensive map of the key features to consider in designing HWC schemes. CONCLUSION: This review provides an initial framework for designers and architects to (1) understand the effect of each design element of HWC and (2) inform design to ultimately improve the QOL of aged people.

Interventions to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a cost-effective modelling review.

BACKGROUND: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a fatal neurological disease caused by abnormal infectious proteins called prions. Prions that are present on surgical instruments cannot be completely deactivated; therefore, patients who are subsequently operated on using these instruments may become infected. This can result in surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. OBJECTIVE: To update literature reviews, consultation with experts and economic modelling published in 2006, and to provide the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. METHODS: Eight systematic reviews were undertaken for clinical parameters. One review of cost-effectiveness was undertaken. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2005 to 2017. Expert elicitation sessions were undertaken. An advisory committee, convened by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce guidance, provided an additional source of information. A mathematical model was updated focusing on brain and posterior eye surgery and neuroendoscopy. The model simulated both patients and instrument sets. Assuming that there were potentially 15 cases of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease between 2005 and 2018, approximate Bayesian computation was used to obtain samples from the posterior distribution of the model parameters to generate results. Heuristics were used to improve computational efficiency. The modelling conformed to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The strategies evaluated included neither keeping instruments moist nor prohibiting set migration; ensuring that instruments were kept moist; prohibiting instrument migration between sets; and employing single-use instruments. Threshold analyses were undertaken to establish prices at which single-use sets or completely effective decontamination solutions would be cost-effective. RESULTS: A total of 169 papers were identified for the clinical review. The evidence from published literature was not deemed sufficiently strong to take precedence over the distributions obtained from expert elicitation. Forty-eight papers were identified in the review of cost-effectiveness. The previous modelling structure was revised to add the possibility of misclassifying surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as another neurodegenerative disease, and assuming that all patients were susceptible to infection. Keeping instruments moist was estimated to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and associated costs. Based on probabilistic sensitivity analyses, keeping instruments moist was estimated to on average result in 2.36 (range 0-47) surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases (across England) caused by infection occurring between 2019 and 2023. Prohibiting set migration or employing single-use instruments reduced the estimated risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases further, but at considerable cost. The estimated costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained of these strategies in addition to keeping instruments moist were in excess of £1M. It was estimated that single-use instrument sets (currently £350-500) or completely effective cleaning solutions would need to cost approximately £12 per patient to be cost-effective using a £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained value. LIMITATIONS: As no direct published evidence to implicate surgery as a cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has been found since 2005, the estimations of potential cases from elicitation are still speculative. A particular source of uncertainty was in the number of potential surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases that may have occurred between 2005 and 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping instruments moist is estimated to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and associated costs. Further surgical management strategies can reduce the risks of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease but have considerable associated costs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017071807. 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. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aims of this report were to summarise evidence relating to surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease and to explore the value for money of strategies to reduce the chance of any future surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease cases. Current recommendations include keeping sets of surgical instruments together for high-risk operations and using separate instruments for people born after 1996. The project involved reviewing published papers, speaking with experts and building a computer model. The literature reviews found that Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease occurs in around 1­2 per million people and that no definite cases of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease have been observed since the 1970s. The reviews also looked for information on the possibility of patients being infected with Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease after having surgery on high-risk tissues, such as the brain and the back of the eye. They found that there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding who might have Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease, but not yet have symptoms, as well as the risk of transmission and the ability of strategies to reduce this risk. The computer model aimed to estimate value for money of different strategies to reduce the risks of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease. However, the reviews found that some of the numbers needed for the model were not known, so experts were asked to estimate this information instead along with the range of possible values. This information included the effectiveness of different cleaning practices and the chances of infected tissue being transmitted between patients undergoing high-risk surgery. The model found that keeping surgical instruments moist prior to cleaning was likely to save money and reduce the chance of future surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease cases. However, additional measures, such as using only sets of single-use instruments, ensuring that instruments were kept together in their sets or using separate instruments for those born after 1996, appeared to be poor value for money.

Tofacitinib for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Pfizer) of tofacitinib (TOF; Xeljanz®) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for TOF is based predominantly on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of TOF against placebo. Three RCTs investigated TOF in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and one RCT investigated TOF monotherapy. All four RCTs compared TOF with placebo plus cDMARDs, one RCT also included adalimumab as a comparator. The study population in the four RCTs comprised patients who were MTX inadequate responders or cDMARD inadequate responders (cDMARD-IR). The company performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of TOF compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients who were cDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR with moderate-to-severe RA for European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at 6 months. The company's NMA concluded that TOF had comparable efficacy to bDMARDs currently recommended by NICE. The company submitted a de novo model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TOF versus its comparators in six different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR with severe RA; (2) cDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) bDMARD-IR; (4) bDMARD-IR for whom rituximab (RTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (5) bDMARD-IR for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; and, (6) cDMARD-IR with moderate RA. According to the company's economic analyses, in cDMARD-IR with severe RA, TOF plus MTX dominates or extendedly dominates most comparators, whilst TOF monotherapy is slightly less effective and less expensive than its comparators, with the cost saved per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost always higher than £50,000. In bDMARD-IR with severe RA, RTX plus MTX dominated TOF plus MTX, but in patients for whom RTX was not an option, TOF plus MTX dominated all comparators included in the analysis (four comparators recommended by NICE were not included). In cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY for TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy compared with a sequence of cDMARDs was estimated to be greater than £50,000/QALY. The ERG identified a number of limitations in the company's analyses, including use of a fixed-effects model in the NMA and the use of treatment sequences in the cost-effectiveness model which did not reflect NICE recommendations. These limitations were addressed partly by the company during the clarification round and partly by the ERG. The exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in similar conclusions: (1) TOF plus MTX was dominated by RTX plus MTX; (2) TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy dominates or extendedly dominates some of its comparators in cDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom RTX plus MTX was not an option; and (3) in cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY of TOF in combination with MTX or as a monotherapy versus cDMARDs was in excess of £47,000. The NICE Appraisal Committee consequently recommended TOF plus MTX as an option for patients whose disease has responded inadequately to intensive therapy with a combination of cDMARDs only if (1) disease is severe [a Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of more than 5.1] and (2) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the Patient Access Scheme (PAS). TOF plus MTX is also recommended as an option for adults whose disease has responded inadequately to, or who cannot have, other DMARDs, including at least one bDMARD, only if (1) disease is severe, (2) they cannot have RTX, and (3) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the PAS. For patients who are intolerant of MTX, or where MTX is contraindicated, TOF monotherapy is recommended where TOF plus MTX would be recommended.

A qualitative systematic review of service user and service provider perspectives on the acceptability, relative benefits, and potential harms of art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence relating to user and service provider perspective on the acceptability and relative benefits and potential harms of art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental disorders. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 13 major bibliographic databases from May to July 2013. A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted using thematic framework synthesis. RESULTS: The searches identified 10,270 citations from which 12 studies were included. Ten studies included data from 183 service users, and two studies included data from 16 service providers. The evidence demonstrated that art therapy was an acceptable treatment. The benefits associated with art therapy included the following: the development of relationships with the therapist and other group members; understanding the self/own illness/the future; gaining perspective; distraction; personal achievement; expression; relaxation; and empowerment. Small numbers of patients reported varying reasons for not wanting to take part, and some highlighted potentially negative effects of art therapy which included the evoking of feelings which could not be resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that for the majority of respondents art therapy was an acceptable intervention, although this was not the case for all respondents. Therefore, attention should be focussed on both identifying those who are most likely to benefit from art therapy and ensuring any potential harms are minimized. The findings provide evidence to commissioners and providers of mental health services about the value of future art therapy services. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Art therapy was reported to be an acceptable treatment for the majority of respondents. Art therapy may not be a preferred treatment option for a small number of patients, emphasizing the importance of considering patient preference in choice of treatment, and selection of the most suitable patients for art therapy. Consideration should be made of adjustments to make art therapy inclusive, particularly for those with physical illnesses. Ensuring the competence of the deliverer, providing patients with additional support, such as other therapies if required, and ensuring continuity of care should be key considerations in service provision.

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal Process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of degarelix (Ferring Pharmaceuticals) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of degarelix for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The evidence, which included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of degarelix versus leuprorelin, found that degarelix was non-inferior to leuprorelin for reduction of testosterone levels and that degarelix achieved a more rapid suppression of prostate-specific antigen levels and subsequently decreased incidences of testosterone flare associated with luteinising hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists. However, protection against testosterone flare for the comparators in the clinical trials was not employed in line with UK clinical practice. Further claims surrounding overall survival, cardiovascular adverse events and clinical equivalence of the comparator drugs from six RCTs of degarelix should be regarded with caution because of flaws and inconsistencies in the pooling of trial data to draw conclusions. The cost-effectiveness evidence included a de novo economic model. Based on the ERG's preferred base case, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICER) for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin was £14,798 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Additional scenario analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin ranging from £17,067 to £35,589 per QALY gained. Subgroup analyses undertaken using the Appraisal Committee's preferred assumptions suggested that degarelix was not cost effective for the subgroup with metastatic disease but could be cost effective for the subgroup with spinal metastases. The company submitted further evidence to NICE following an initial negative Appraisal Committee decision. Further analyses from the Decision Support Unit found that that, whilst some evidence indicated that degarelix could be cost effective for a small subgroup of people with spinal cord compression (SCC), data on the potential size of this subgroup and the rate of SCC were insufficient to estimate an ICER based on the evidence submitted by the company and a separately commissioned systematic review. NICE recommended degarelix as an option for treating advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in people with spinal metastases, only if the commissioner can achieve at least the same discounted drug cost as that available to the UK NHS in June 2016.

Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi - a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE(®) (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest(TM) (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry). DATA SOURCES: Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. LIMITATIONS: Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016724. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of group art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of mental health problems are non-psychotic (e.g., depression, anxiety, and phobias). For some people, art therapy may be a more acceptable alternative form of psychological therapy than standard forms of treatment, such as talking therapies. This study was part of a health technology assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research, UK and aimed to systematically appraise the clinical and cost-effective evidence for art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness and a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven randomised controlled trials were included (533 patients). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. The control groups varied between studies but included: no treatment/wait-list, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 7 of the 11 studies. A de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control and group art therapy with group verbal therapy. Group art-therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty although generalisability to the target population was unclear; group verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited available evidence art therapy was associated with positive effects compared with control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles. The included trials were generally of poor quality and are therefore likely to be at high risk of bias. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective versus wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding in the target population. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed comparison of the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy with group verbal therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: HTA project no. 12/27/16; PROSPERO registration no. CRD42013003957.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy among people with non-psychotic mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems account for almost half of all ill health in people under 65 years. The majority are non-psychotic (e.g. depression, anxiety and phobias). For some people, art therapy may provide more profound and long-lasting healing than more standard forms of treatment, perhaps because it can provide an alternative means of expression and release from trauma. As yet, no formal evaluation of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders has been conducted. AIM: This review aimed to evaluate evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in major health-related and social science bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) from inception up to May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness, a qualitative review to explore the acceptability, relative benefits and potential harms, and a cost-utility analysis of studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of art therapy were conducted. RESULTS: In the quantitative review, 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included (n = 777). Meta-analysis was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. A narrative synthesis reports that art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 10 out of the 15 studies. The control groups varied between studies but included wait-list/no treatment, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Four studies reported improvement from baseline but no significant difference between groups. One study reported that outcomes were more favourable in the control group. The quality of included RCTs was generally low. In the qualitative review, 12 cohort studies were included (n = 188 service users; n = 16 service providers). Themes relating to benefits of art therapy for service users included the relationship with the therapist, personal achievement and distraction. Areas of potential harms were related to the activation of emotions that were then unresolved, lack of skill of the art therapist and sudden termination of art therapy. The quality of included qualitative studies was generally low to moderate. In the cost-effectiveness review, a de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control, group art therapy with group verbal therapy, and individual art therapy versus control. Art therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty, although generalisability to the target population was unclear. Verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more clinically effective. The cost-effectiveness of individual art therapy was uncertain and dependent on assumptions regarding clinical benefit and duration of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited available evidence, art therapy was associated with positive effects when compared with a control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles, and it was reported to be an acceptable treatment and was associated with a number of benefits. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective compared with wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding as well as evidence to inform future cost-effective analyses of art therapy versus other treatments. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003957. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic review and modelling of the cost-effectiveness of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging compared with current existing testing pathways in ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is increasingly used to assess patients for myocardial viability prior to revascularisation. This is important to ensure that only those likely to benefit are subjected to the risk of revascularisation. OBJECTIVES: To assess current evidence on the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of CMR to test patients prior to revascularisation in ischaemic cardiomyopathy; to develop an economic model to assess cost-effectiveness for different imaging strategies; and to identify areas for further primary research. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched were: MEDLINE including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Initial searches were conducted in March 2011 in the following databases with dates: MEDLINE including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid (1946 to March 2011); Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) Previews via Web of Science (1969 to March 2011); EMBASE via Ovid (1974 to March 2011); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via The Cochrane Library (1996 to March 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via The Cochrane Library 1998 to March 2011; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via The Cochrane Library (1994 to March 2011); NHS Economic Evaluation Database via The Cochrane Library (1968 to March 2011); Health Technology Assessment Database via The Cochrane Library (1989 to March 2011); and the Science Citation Index via Web of Science (1900 to March 2011). Additional searches were conducted from October to November 2011 in the following databases with dates: MEDLINE including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid (1946 to November 2011); BIOSIS Previews via Web of Science (1969 to October 2011); EMBASE via Ovid (1974 to November 2011); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via The Cochrane Library (1996 to November 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via The Cochrane Library (1998 to November 2011); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via The Cochrane Library (1994 to November 2011); NHS Economic Evaluation Database via The Cochrane Library (1968 to November 2011); Health Technology Assessment Database via The Cochrane Library (1989 to November 2011); and the Science Citation Index via Web of Science (1900 to October 2011). Electronic databases were searched March-November 2011. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review selected studies that assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CMR to establish the role of CMR in viability assessment compared with other imaging techniques: stress echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). Studies had to have an appropriate reference standard and contain accuracy data or sufficient details so that accuracy data could be calculated. Data were extracted by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved by discussion. Quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS II tool (University of Bristol, Bristol, UK). A rigorous diagnostic accuracy systematic review assessed clinical and cost-effectiveness of CMR in viability assessment. A health economic model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued by diagnostic pathways for identifying patients with viable myocardium in ischaemic cardiomyopathy with a view to revascularisation. The pathways involved CMR, stress echocardiography, SPECT, PET alone or in combination. Strategies of no testing and revascularisation were included to determine the most cost-effective strategy. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. All were prospective. Participant numbers ranged from 8 to 52. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction in studies reporting this outcome was 24-62%. CMR approaches included stress CMR and late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CE CMR). Recovery following revascularisation was the reference standard. Twelve studies assessed diagnostic accuracy of stress CMR and 14 studies assessed CE CMR. A bivariate regression model was used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of CMR. Summary sensitivity and specificity for stress CMR was 82.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.2% to 88.7%] and 87.1% (95% CI 80.4% to 91.7%) and for CE CMR was 95.5% (95% CI 94.1% to 96.7%) and 53% (95% CI 40.4% to 65.2%) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of PET, SPECT and stress echocardiography were calculated using data from 10 studies and systematic reviews. The sensitivity of PET was 94.7% (95% CI 90.3% to 97.2%), of SPECT was 85.1% (95% CI 78.1% to 90.2%) and of stress echocardiography was 77.6% (95% CI 70.7% to 83.3%). The specificity of PET was 68.8% (95% CI 50% to 82.9%), of SPECT was 62.1% (95% CI 52.7% to 70.7%) and of stress echocardiography was 69.6% (95% CI 62.4% to 75.9%). All currently used diagnostic strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. If the annual mortality rates for non-viable patients were assumed to be higher for revascularised patients, then testing with CE CMR was most cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY. The proportion of model runs in which each strategy was most cost-effective, at a threshold of £20,000/QALY, was 40% for CE CMR, 42% for PET and 16.5% for revascularising everyone. The expected value of perfect information at £20,000/QALY was £620 per patient. If all patients (viable or not) gained benefit from revascularisation, then it was most cost-effective to revascularise all patients. LIMITATIONS: Definitions and techniques assessing viability were highly variable, making data extraction and comparisons difficult. Lack of evidence meant assumptions were made in the model leading to uncertainty; differing scenarios were generated around key assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: All the diagnostic pathways are a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Given the uncertainty in the mortality rates, the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a set of scenarios. The cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that CE CMR and revascularising everyone were the optimal strategies. Future research should look at implementation costs for this type of imaging service, provide guidance on consistent reporting of diagnostic testing data for viability assessment, and focus on the impact of revascularisation or best medical therapy in this group of high-risk patients. FUNDING: The National Institute of Health Technology Assessment programme.

Dry powder inhalers in cystic fibrosis: same old drugs but different benefits?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Newer 'innovative' formulations of antibiotics for Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection in patients with cystic fibrosis include colistimethate sodium and tobramycin in the form of dry powders for inhalation (DPIs). Whilst these DPIs are anticipated to improve patient adherence because of increased convenience and ease of administration, questions remain concerning whether they are as clinically effective, safe and cost-effective as nebulized antibiotics. RECENT FINDINGS: This review describes the recent findings of a health technology assessment of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colistimethate sodium and tobramycin DPIs with regard to how innovative treatments may be judged to be incrementally better than existing treatments. The original assessment was undertaken to inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's Technology Appraisal Programme to inform national clinical guidance on the use of these new treatments in the National Health Service. SUMMARY: Three trials were included in the systematic review. Issues surrounding the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colistimethate sodium DPI and tobramycin DPI are discussed in light of the considerable uncertainties associated with the available evidence.

The cost effectiveness of dry powder antibiotics for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) affects over 9,000 people in the UK and limits life expectancy. CF patients are susceptible to lung infections, most commonly Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Once infection is established, patients require lifetime treatment using nebulised antibiotics. Newer dry powder formulations of antibiotics may reduce treatment burden and improve compliance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of (i) colistimethate sodium dry powder for inhalation (DPI) and (ii) tobramycin DPI versus nebulised tobramycin for the treatment of chronic P. aeruginosa lung infection in patients with CF from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS). METHODS: We developed a state transition model based on transitions between three strata of lung function measured in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) % predicted. Additional health states representing post-lung transplantation and dead are also modelled. The model structure was informed by systematic reviews of evidence concerning the plausibility of potential relationships between intermediate endpoints and final outcomes. The model assumes that treatment impacts on FEV1 trajectory, which manifest as changes in health-related quality of life. No survival benefit is assumed due to the absence of robust quantifiable evidence. Model parameters were informed by patient-level and aggregate data from two randomised controlled trials together with the best available evidence from the literature. Resource use and costs associated with drug acquisition, the management of exacerbations and reduced nebuliser maintenance were drawn from reference sources and expert opinion. Costs were valued at 2011/2012 prices. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5 %. Simple and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, including additional analyses of Patient Access Scheme (PAS) price discounts offered by the manufacturers of both DPI products. RESULTS: Colistimethate sodium DPI is expected to produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than nebulised tobramycin. Based on its list price, colistimethate sodium DPI is expected to be dominated by nebulised tobramycin. When the PAS is incorporated, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for colistimethate sodium DPI versus nebulised tobramycin is expected to be approximately £288,600 saved per QALY lost. Based on its current list price, the ICER for tobramycin DPI versus nebulised tobramycin is expected to be approximately £124,000 per QALY gained. When the proposed PAS is included, tobramycin DPI is expected to dominate nebulised tobramycin. CONCLUSIONS: Under their list prices, neither DPI product is likely to represent good value for money for the NHS given current cost-effectiveness thresholds. The PAS discounts have a significant impact upon the economic attractiveness of both DPI products compared against nebulised tobramycin. The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the DPIs against other nebulised antibiotics, such as aztreonam and inhaled colistimethate sodium, remains unclear.

Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.

As part of its single technology process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturers of aripiprazole (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. and Bristol Myers Squibb) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the manufacturers' submission to NICE. The evidence, which was derived mainly from a double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled trial of aripiprazole in patients aged 10-17 years, showed that aripiprazole performed significantly better than placebo in reducing mania according to the primary outcome measurement (the Young Mania Rating Scale at 4 weeks). Safety outcomes indicated that aripiprazole was significantly more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms and somnolence than placebo. The manufacturers also presented a network meta-analysis of aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics commonly used to treat manic episodes (olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone) to show that aripiprazole performed similarly to the comparator drugs in terms of efficacy and safety. Aripiprazole was demonstrated to perform better in safety outcomes of (1) less weight gain than olanzapine and quetiapine; and (2) less prolactin increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Results from the manufacturers' economic evaluation showed that use of aripiprazole second-line dominated all of the other treatment strategies that were considered. However, there was considerable uncertainty in this result, and clinical advisors indicated that the actual treatment strategy employed in practice is likely to be dependent upon the patient's characteristics. The ERG demonstrated that if this personalised medicine resulted in improved cost effectiveness for any of the other treatment strategies, then they had the potential to dominate use of aripiprazole second-line. In conclusion, whilst a strategy including aripiprazole appeared to be cost effective relative to a strategy without it, there was not robust enough evidence to recommend a specific place for aripiprazole within the treatment pathway.