The cost-effectiveness of antenatal and postnatal education and support interventions for women aimed at promoting breastfeeding in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is associated with health benefits to mothers and babies and cost-savings to the health service. Breastfeeding rates in the UK are low for various reasons including cultural barriers, inadequate support to initiate and sustain breastfeeding, lack of information, or choice not to breastfeed. Education and support interventions have been developed aiming at promoting breastfeeding rates. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of such interventions for women, initiated antenatally or in the first 8 weeks postnatally, aiming at improving breastfeeding rates, in the UK. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of a breastfeeding intervention from the perspective of health and personal social services in England. Data on intervention effectiveness and the benefits of breastfeeding were derived from systematic reviews. Other model input parameters were obtained from published sources, supplemented by expert opinion. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the modelled intervention added on standard care versus standard care was £51,946/QALY, suggesting that the intervention is not cost-effective under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria in England. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the cost-effectiveness of the intervention improved as its effectiveness increased and intervention cost decreased. At the base-case effect (increase in breastfeeding rates 16-26 weeks after birth by 19%), the intervention was cost-effective (<£20,000/QALY) if its cost per woman receiving the intervention became ≈£40-£45. At the base-case cost (£84), the intervention was cost-effective if it increased breastfeeding rates by at least 35-40%. CONCLUSIONS: Available breastfeeding interventions do not appear to be cost-effective under NICE criteria in England. Future breastfeeding interventions need to have higher effectiveness or lower cost compared with currently available interventions in order to become cost-effective. Public health and other societal interventions that protect, promote and support breastfeeding may be key in improving breastfeeding rates in the UK.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes. METHODS: An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained). RESULTS: LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold. LIMITATIONS: LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

Evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors in a systematic review: a case study and worked example.

BACKGROUND: Studies find that identifying additional study data is possible by contacting study authors or experts. What is less certain is the time taken, costs involved and value found by using this supplementary search method. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors by e-mail, updating the evidence available for this search method. METHODS: Eighty-eight study authors, whose studies met title/abstract inclusion in a. systematic review, were contacted by e-mail. * effectiveness was assessed by comparing the number of study authors contacted. compared to the number of replies received; * efficiency was assessed by recording the time taken to contact study authors; * cost was assessed by comparing the efficiency of contacting authors with the. effectiveness; and * value was assessed by reading and comparing the published studies with the replies received to see if any unique data was identified. RESULTS: Contacting study authors took 6 h, 54 min and 25 s across 7 weeks. 38 answers (46%) were received from 83 possible contacts. Contacting study authors cost £80.33 or £2.11 per reply. We identified unique data from author replies when compared with data reported in published studies, determining this method as 'valuable'. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst our effectiveness findings differ from other studies, we believe that this study demonstrates the effectiveness of contacting study authors. By linking effectiveness to value and cost, we offer a new way to interpret the 'effectiveness' of this supplementary search method.

Three biomarker tests to help diagnose preterm labour: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth may result in short- and long-term health problems for the child. Accurate diagnoses of preterm births could prevent unnecessary (or ensure appropriate) admissions into hospitals or transfers to specialist units. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this report is to assess the test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic tests PartoSure™ (Parsagen Diagnostics Inc., Boston, MA, USA), Actim® Partus (Medix Biochemica, Espoo, Finland) and the Rapid Fetal Fibronectin (fFN)® 10Q Cassette Kit (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) at thresholds ≠50 ng/ml [quantitative fFN (qfFN)] for women presenting with signs and symptoms of preterm labour relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml. METHODS: Systematic reviews of the published literature were conducted for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies of PartoSure, Actim Partus and qfFN for predicting preterm birth, the clinical effectiveness following treatment decisions informed by test results and economic evaluations of the tests. A model-based economic evaluation was also conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic tests. The model followed the structure of the model that informed the 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on preterm labour diagnosis and treatment, but with antenatal steroids use, as opposed to tocolysis, driving health outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified evaluating DTA against the reference standard of delivery within 7 days and seven studies were identified evaluating DTA against the reference standard of delivery within 48 hours. Two studies assessed two of the index tests within the same population. One study demonstrated that depending on the threshold used, qfFN was more or less accurate than Actim Partus, whereas the other indicated little difference between PartoSure and Actim Partus. No study assessing qfFN and PartoSure in the same population was identified. The test accuracy results from the other included studies revealed a high level of uncertainty, primarily attributable to substantial methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies. No study compared all three tests simultaneously. No clinical effectiveness studies evaluating any of the three biomarker tests were identified. One partial economic evaluation was identified for predicting preterm birth. It assessed the number needed to treat to prevent a respiratory distress syndrome case with a 'treat-all' strategy, relative to testing with qualitative fFN. Because of the lack of data, our de novo model involved the assumption that management of pregnant women fully adhered to the results of the tests. In the base-case analysis for a woman at 30 weeks' gestation, Actim Partus had lower health-care costs and fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than qfFN at 50 ng/ml, reducing costs at a rate of £56,030 per QALY lost compared with qfFN at 50 ng/ml. PartoSure is less costly than Actim Partus while being equally effective, but this is based on diagnostic accuracy data from a small study. Treatment with qfFN at 200 ng/ml and 500 ng/ml resulted in lower cost savings per QALY lost relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml than treatment with Actim Partus. In contrast, qfFN at 10 ng/ml increased QALYs, by 0.002, and had a cost per QALY gained of £140,267 relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml. Similar qualitative results were obtained for women presenting at different gestational ages. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the test accuracy and cost-effectiveness results. We are aware of four ongoing UK trials, two of which plan to enrol > 1000 participants. The results of these trials may significantly alter the findings presented here. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017072696. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Infants may suffer from health problems if they are born early. If a mother has symptoms of labour before her baby is due, a test could be used to predict if the symptoms are real or a false alarm. A test could help the doctor to decide whether the mother needs treatment or to move to a specialist hospital or if she could be sent home (if it is a false alarm). Our report compares three tests [PartoSure™ (Parsagen Diagnostics Inc., Boston, MA, USA), Actim^® Partus (Medix Biochemica, Espoo, Finland) and the Fetal Fibronectin (fFN) Test (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA)] on how well they predict an early birth and how the costs and the long-term health outcomes of the child compare between and among tests. All the published literature reporting the accuracy of the three tests and their costs was reviewed. We developed a new cost-effectiveness model, which estimated the long-term health outcomes of the child based on the test results. Twenty of the studies reviewed looked at how good the tests were at predicting an early birth within the next 7 days, and six looked at predicting birth within 48 hours. The designs of the studies and the women taking part in the studies varied greatly. This meant that comparing the accuracy of the tests was very difficult and it would be unfair to decide which test was the best. Our model suggested no firm conclusions for the cost-effectiveness of fFN compared with Actim Partus. PartoSure appears to be less costly than Actim Partus and equally good at predicting preterm birth, but this is based on a study of very few patients. There were no data that allowed us to compare all three tests together. The accuracy of the results is uncertain, mainly because all the studies are very different. We are aware of four related UK trials that are currently ongoing that plan to include large numbers of women.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses. LIMITATIONS: Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included. CONCLUSIONS: LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits. FUTURE WORK: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial]. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review of model-based analyses.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about which subgroup of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients should be treated with direct acting anti-viral agents (DAAs) have economic importance due to high drug prices. Treat-all DAA strategies for CHC have gained acceptance despite high drug acquisition costs. However, there are also costs associated with the surveillance of CHC to determine a subgroup of patients with significant impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the modelling methods used and summarise results in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of both CHC treatment with DAAs and surveillance of liver disease. METHODS: Electronic databases including Embase and Medline were searched from inception to May 2015. Eligible studies included models predicting costs and/or outcomes for interventions, surveillance, or management of people with CHC. Narrative and quantitative synthesis were conducted. Quality appraisal was conducted using validated checklists. The review was conducted following principles published by NHS Centre for Research and Dissemination. RESULTS: Forty-one CEAs met the eligibility criteria for the review; 37 evaluated an intervention and four evaluated surveillance strategies for targeting DAA treatment to those likely to gain most benefit. Included studies were of variable quality mostly due to reporting omissions. Of the 37 CEAs, eight models that enabled comparative analysis were fully appraised and synthesized. These models provided non-unique cost-effectiveness estimates in a specific DAA comparison in a specific population defined in terms of genotype, prior treatment status, and presence or absence of cirrhosis. Marked heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates was observed despite this stratification. Approximately half of the estimates suggested that DAAs were cost-effective considering a threshold of US$30,000 and 73% with threshold of US$50,000. Two models evaluating surveillance strategies suggested that treating all CHC patients regardless of the staging of liver disease could be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: CEAs of CHC treatments need to better account for variability in their estimates. This analysis suggested that there are still circumstances where DAAs are not cost-effective. Surveillance in place of a treat-all strategy may still need to be considered as an option for deploying DAAs, particularly where acquisition cost is at the limit of affordability for a given health system.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies with cetuximab (Erbitux®; Merck Serono UK Ltd) and panitumumab (Vectibix®; Amgen UK Ltd) are shown to be less effective in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who have mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS oncogenes from the rat sarcoma (RAS) family. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of these drugs in patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type (i.e. non-mutated) metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. METHODS: We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of cetuximab and panitumumab combined with either FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) vs. FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. The economic analysis was based on three randomised controlled trials. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: Based on the evidence available, both drugs fulfil the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's end-of-life criteria. In the analysis, assuming discount prices for the drugs from patient access schemes agreed by the drug manufacturers with the Department of Health, predicted mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cetuximab + FOLFOX, panitumumab + FOLFOX and cetuximab + FOLFIRI compared with chemotherapy alone appeared cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab and panitumumab were recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, for use within the National Health Service in England. Both treatments are available via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.

Immunosuppressive agents in adult kidney transplantation in the National Health Service: a model-based economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppression is required in kidney transplantation to prevent rejection and prolong graft survival. We conducted an economic evaluation to support England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in developing updated guidance on the use of immunosuppression, incorporating new immunosuppressive agents, and addressing changes in pricing and the evidence base. METHODS: A discrete-time state transition model was developed to simulate adult kidney transplant patients over their lifetime. A total of 16 different regimens were modelled to assess the cost-effectiveness of basiliximab and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rabbit ATG) as induction agents (with no antibody induction as a comparator) and immediate-release tacrolimus, prolonged-release tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus, everolimus and belatacept as maintenance agents (with ciclosporin and azathioprine as comparators). Graft survival was extrapolated from acute rejection rates, graft function and post-transplant diabetes rates, all estimated at 12 months post-transplantation. National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services costs were included. Cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per quality-adjusted life year were used. RESULTS: Basiliximab was predicted to be more effective and less costly than rabbit ATG and induction without antibodies. Immediate-release tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil were cost-effective as maintenance therapies. Other therapies were either more expensive and less effective or would only be cost-effective if a threshold in excess of £100 000 per quality-adjusted life year were used. CONCLUSIONS: A regimen comprising induction with basiliximab, followed by maintenance therapy with immediate-release tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, is likely to be effective for uncomplicated adult kidney transplant patients and a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates. LIMITATIONS: The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK: High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation. DATA SOURCES: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost). REVIEW METHODS: Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC. LIMITATIONS: The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence. CONCLUSIONS: TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.