Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation. Setting: Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings. Methods: Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee. Results: The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations: No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified. Conclusions: The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies. Future work: Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is an infectious disease that can cause death and long-term ill-health. Treatments exist that can be provided in hospital to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. Treatments also exist which can be provided in the community for people at high risk of needing to be admitted to hospital to reduce the number of admissions and to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. However, the value for money of these treatments has not been estimated. We took the clinical effectiveness of nine treatments from published literature sources and built a model that estimated the value for money of six treatments compared with care without these treatments. Three treatments were excluded due to confidential prices. The results of the model showed that many treatments in a hospital setting had estimates of cost-effectiveness that would normally be seen to be good value for money using the thresholds published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The same was true for some treatments in a community setting. However, it is also possible that these treatments are not good value for money. The benefit of the drugs and value for money is highly uncertain as studies trying to estimate the gain have been done with (1) previous variants of the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 being widespread, (2) where the proportion of people who have had vaccinations or who had previously had coronavirus disease 2019 is low and (3) where standard treatment was that when coronavirus disease 2019 was first identified, and not the drugs used now. Because of these differences, and the unknown price of some interventions, we cannot confidently say which (if any) treatments help patients the most, or which treatment represents the best value for money. Further research, in current conditions, would improve the accuracy of our answers.

Dynamic and Flexible Survival Models for Extrapolation of Relative Survival: A Case Study and Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Extrapolation of survival data is a key task in health technology assessments (HTAs), which may be improved by incorporating general population mortality data via relative survival models. Dynamic survival models are a promising method for extrapolation that may be expanded to dynamic relative survival models (DRSMs), a novel development presented here. There are currently neither examples of dynamic models in HTA nor comparisons of DRSMs with other relative survival models when used for survival extrapolation. METHODS: An existing appraisal, for which there had been disagreement over the approach to survival extrapolation, was chosen and the health economic model recreated. The sensitivity of estimates of cost-effectiveness to different model choices (standard survival models, DSMs, and DRSMs) and specifications was examined. The appraisal informed a simulation study to evaluate DRSMs with relative survival models based on both standard and spline-based (flexible) models. RESULTS: Dynamic models provided insight into the behavior of the trend in the hazard function and how it may vary during the extrapolated phase. DRSMs led to extrapolations with improved plausibility for which model choice may be based on clinical input. In the simulation study, the flexible and dynamic relative survival models performed similarly and provided highly variable extrapolations. LIMITATIONS: Further experience with these models is required to identify settings when they are most useful, and they provide sufficiently accurate extrapolations. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic models provide a flexible and attractive method for extrapolating survival data and facilitate the use of clinical input for model choice. Flexible and dynamic relative survival models make few structural assumptions and can improve extrapolation plausibility, but further research is required into methods for reducing the variability in extrapolations.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. DESIGN: Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. SETTING: Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. INTERVENTIONS: Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. RESULTS: Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. LIMITATIONS: Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. FUTURE WORK: Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. 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. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cigarette smoking is one of the main causes of early death both in the UK and worldwide. Three medicines, varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy, are licensed in the UK to help people stop smoking. E-cigarettes can also be used as a stop smoking aid. We combined information from previous studies, including clinical trials, to determine which product was the safest, most effective and best value for money for the NHS. We compared treatments that were given alone as well as treatments that were combined with others, such as combination nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with bupropion and bupropion combined with nicotine replacement therapy. The last three combined treatments are not currently licensed in the UK for smoking cessation. We also compared different treatment doses (low, high and standard doses). We found that most treatments were more effective than placebo in helping people to quit smoking. One of the combination treatments (varenicline at standard dose combined with nicotine replacement therapy at standard dose) was the most effective at getting people to quit smoking, followed by e-cigarette at low dose, varenicline at standard dose combined with bupropion at standard dose, and e-cigarette at high dose. We also found that smokers with higher tobacco dependence and smokers treated with counselling alongside medicines achieved a higher proportion of continuous quitting. We also found evidence that the standard dose of bupropion was associated with an increased risk of serious side effects compared with placebo. There was inconclusive evidence that any of the treatments increased the risk of major cardiovascular side effects. There was some evidence that smokers who received a standard dose of varenicline had an increased risk of major neurological and psychiatric side effects compared with those receiving a standard dose of bupropion. E-cigarette at low dose, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard and varenicline standard plus bupropion standard were the best value for money interventions, but further clinical trials comparing treatments against each other are needed to increase confidence in these findings.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point of care tests for routine testing in residential care homes: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which at the time of writing (January 2021) was responsible for more than 2.25 million deaths worldwide and over 100,000 deaths in the UK. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in residential care homes. OBJECTIVE: The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests in the setting of a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING: The perspective was that of the NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Care homes with en suite rooms and with shared facilities were modelled separately. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was constructed to model individual residents and simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 once it had entered the residential care facility. The numbers of COVID-19-related deaths and critical cases were recorded in addition to the number of days spent in isolation. Thirteen strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests and for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Scenario analyses modelled early release from isolation based on receipt of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and the impact of vaccination. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness results depended on the proportion of residential care facilities penetrated by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with desirable target product profiles appear to have high net monetary benefit values. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with acceptable target product profiles had low net monetary benefit values because of unnecessary isolations. The benefit of allowing early release from isolation depended on whether or not the facility had en suite rooms. The greater the assumed efficacy of vaccination, the lower the net monetary benefit values associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, when assuming that a vaccine lowers the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. Some degree of Monte Carlo sampling error persists because of the timelines of the project. The example care home simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly the cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests have considerable potential for benefit for use in residential care facilities, but whether or not this materialises depends on the diagnostic accuracy and costs of forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results would be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of and the reduction in time to test result associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests when used in the context of residential care facilities, the proportion of care home penetrated by SARS-CoV-2 and the levels of immunity once vaccination is administered. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING: This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 is highly infectious, and this can cause problems in care homes, where the virus can spread quickly. Laboratory-based tests can determine whether or not someone has SARS-CoV-2, but these tests are not perfect and can take a long time to provide a result. Point-of-care tests that can be performed quickly in the care home to detect SARS-CoV-2 are being developed and they may have much shorter times to get a result than laboratory-based tests, although with worse accuracy. The benefit of quicker tests is that decisions to put residents into or release them from isolation can be made sooner, reducing the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 and reducing time in isolation. The disadvantage of reduced accuracy is that wrong decisions could be made, resulting in either unnecessary isolation or increased spread of SARS-CoV-2. A computer model was built to explore the impact of using SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests for residents of care homes. The model estimated the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, deaths due to COVID-19 and days in isolation. Strategies were run using different values, including the time to get a test result back, the accuracy of tests, the proportion of care homes where there is a case of SARS-CoV-2, whether residents were isolated individually or in groups and how well vaccines work. The results of the model indicated that point-of-care tests could be good if there was a large decrease in the time to get a test result back, if accuracy was high and if vaccination protection was moderate. However, the accuracy and speed of future point-of-care tests is uncertain. When newer SARS-CoV-2 tests are available, the model will allow an estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tests to be made.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information. RESULTS: When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose. CONCLUSION: Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. At the time of writing (October 2020), the number of cases of COVID-19 had been approaching 38 million and more than 1 million deaths were attributable to it. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in hospital wards. OBJECTIVE: The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests. A further objective was to assess occupancy levels in hospital areas, such as waiting bays, before allocation to an appropriate bay. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING: The perspective was that of the UK NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical hospital with an accident and emergency department. METHODS: An individual patient model was constructed that simulated the spread of disease and mortality within the hospital and recorded occupancy levels. Thirty-two strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests were modelled. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits, and key patient outcomes, such as death and intensive care unit care, caused directly by COVID-19 were recorded. RESULTS: A SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile appears to have a relatively small number of infections, a low occupancy level within the waiting bays, and a high net monetary benefit. However, if hospital laboratory testing can produce results in 6 hours, then the benefits of point-of-care tests may be reduced. The acceptable target product profiles performed less well and had lower net monetary benefits than both a laboratory-based test with a 24-hour turnaround time and strategies using data from currently available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. The desirable and acceptable point-of-care test target product profiles had lower requirement for patients to be in waiting bays before being allocated to an appropriate bay than laboratory-based tests, which may be of high importance in some hospitals. Tests that appeared more cost-effective also had better patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. The example hospital simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Should a SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile become available, this appears promising, particularly when the reduction on the requirements for waiting bays before allocation to a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, or a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, is considered. The results produced should be informative to decision-makers who can identify the results most pertinent to their specific circumstances. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results could be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of, and the reduction in time to test result associated with, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, and on the impact of these tests on occupancy of waiting bays and isolation bays. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING: This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 is highly infectious, and this can cause problems in hospitals, where the virus can spread quickly. Laboratory-based tests can determine whether or not a patient has SARS-CoV-2, but these tests are not perfect and can require a considerable time to provide a result. Point-of-care tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 are being developed that may have much shorter times to a test result, although these are likely to be less accurate than laboratory-based tests. The benefit of quicker tests is that a decision to put a patient in a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay or in a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay can be made sooner, limiting contact between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and patients without SARS-CoV-2 and reducing the risk of infection transmission. The disadvantage of reduced accuracy is that some patients may be allocated to the wrong bay, increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A computer model was built to explore the impact of using SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests for people admitted to hospital. This model estimated the number of infections and deaths due to COVID-19, the costs of testing, and the number of people waiting to be put in an appropriate bay. Strategies were run using different values, including the time to get a test result, the accuracy of tests and whether or not staff who do not have symptoms should be tested. The results of the model indicated that point-of-care tests could be good if there was a large reduction in the time to get a test result and if accuracy was high. However, it is not certain whether or not such tests will become available. When newer SARS-CoV-2 tests are available, the model will allow an estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the test to be made.

Adult lifetime cost of hemophilia B management in the US: payer and societal perspectives from a decision analytic model.

AIMS: Hemophilia B (HB) is a rare congenital disorder characterized by bleeding-related complications which are managed by prophylactic or post-bleeding event ("on-demand") replacement of clotting factor IX (FIX). The standard of care for severe HB is life-long prophylaxis with standard half-life (SHL) or extended half-life (EHL) products given every 2-3 or 7-14 days, respectively. FIX treatment costs in the US have been investigated, but the lifetime costs of HB treatment have not been well characterized, particularly related to the impact of joint health deterioration and associated health resource utilization. We developed a decision-analytic model to explore outcomes, costs and underlying cost drivers associated with FIX treatment options over the lifetime of an adult with severe or moderately severe HB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With participation from clinicians, health technology assessment specialists and patient advocates, a Markov model was constructed to estimate bleeding events and costs associated with health states including "bleed into joint", "bleed not into joint", "no bleed" and "death". Sub-models of joint health were based on 0, 1, or ≥2 areas of chronic joint damage. US third-party payer and societal perspectives were considered with a lifetime horizon; sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of primary findings. RESULTS: Total adult lifetime costs per patient with severe and moderately severe HB were $21,086,607 for SHL FIX prophylaxis, $22,987,483 for EHL FIX prophylaxis, and $20,971,826 for on-demand FIX treatment. For FIX prophylaxis, the cost of FIX treatment accounts for >90% of the total HB treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: This decision analytic model demonstrated significant economic burden associated with the current HB treatment paradigm.

Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.

BACKGROUND: The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. METHODS: Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making. RESULTS: We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide. FURTHER RESEARCH: Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In May 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration granted the first approval for a cancer treatment based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated (the tumour site); that is, a site-agnostic or 'histology-independent' indication was granted. Research from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suggests that there are approximately 20 technologies currently in development for histology-independent indications. The first marketing authorisation was granted in Europe in 2019. Histology-independent treatments have the potential to have important effects in patient populations for whom there are currently limited or no available treatment options. However, it is also important to ensure that the use of these treatments in the NHS is supported by systematic and robust assessments of clinical evidence (i.e. how well the medicine or treatment works) and economic evidence (i.e. the medicine's value for money). These assessments are undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, usually for treatments targeting specific tumours sites. However, a histology-independent marketing authorisation would probably include many tumour sites and it is not possible for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to conduct a separate assessment for each tumour site for which the treatment could be beneficial. As a result, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence needs to consider how these products can be appropriately assessed without creating unnecessary delays in patient access. This research explores the extent to which the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's existing approaches for assessing clinical and economic value can be applied to histology-independent indications, and any changes that might be required. We explore the nature and amount of evidence that is typically available at the point of initial marketing authorisation and develop recommendations to establish the evidence and analyses required to help inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's decisions. We use case studies to highlight possible challenges and to explore ways that these challenges might be addressed. This research will help to inform future National Institute for Health and Care Excellence policy on how to appraise cancer drugs with histology-independent indications. It will also inform the development of guidance for those developing these treatments to help their understanding of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments that will be required to inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's appraisals.

Cost effectiveness of nusinersen for patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy in US.

BACKGROUND: Patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare, genetic neuromuscular disease, do not achieve key motor function milestones (e.g., sitting) and have short life expectancy in the absence of treatment. Nusinersen is a disease-modifying therapy for patients with SMA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nusinersen compared to best supportive care (BSC) in patients diagnosed with infantile-onset SMA in the US. METHODS: A de novo economic model was developed with the following health states: "permanent ventilation", "not sitting", "sitting", "walking", and "death". Short-term data were sourced from the pivotal clinical trials and studies of nusinersen (ENDEAR and SHINE). Motor function milestones achieved at the end of follow-up in the clinical trials were assumed to be sustained until death. Mortality risks were based on survival modelling of relevant published Kaplan-Meier data. Costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per annum, and the analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results to key parameters. RESULTS: In our base-case analysis, nusinersen treatment achieves greater QALYs and more LYs (3.24 and 7.64, respectively) compared with BSC (0.46 QALYs and 2.40 LYs, respectively), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of approximately $1,112,000 and an incremental cost per LY gained of $590,000 for nusinersen compared to BSC. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios did not fall below $990,000 per QALY gained in scenario and sensitivity analyses. Results were most sensitive to the length of survival, background health care costs, and utility in the "not sitting" and "sitting" health states. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness of nusinersen from a US health care sector perspective exceeded traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival, costs, utilities, and whether the motor function milestones were sustained over lifetime. Given the relatively short-term effectiveness data available for the treatment, a registry to collect long-term data of infantile-onset SMA patients is recommended.

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.

The Effectiveness and Value of Treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and California Health Care Foundation to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Cambia Health Solutions and MedSavvy, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Sanofi, Alnylam, Novartis, HealthPartners, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Health Care Services Corporation, Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, National Institute for Health Care Management, Commonwealth Fund, Partners Healthcare, New England States Consortium Systems, Allergan, Biogen, Editas, LEO Pharma, and HealthFirst. ICER has also received grants from Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, California Health Care Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Pearson and Rind are employees of ICER. Thokala and Stevenson have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Modeling the Economic Impact of Interventions for Older Populations with Multimorbidity: A Method of Linking Multiple Single-Disease Models.

Introduction. Individuals from older populations tend to have more than 1 health condition (multimorbidity). Current approaches to produce economic evidence for clinical guidelines using decision-analytic models typically use a single-disease approach, which may not appropriately reflect the competing risks within a population with multimorbidity. This study aims to demonstrate a proof-of-concept method of modeling multiple conditions in a single decision-analytic model to estimate the impact of multimorbidity on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Methods. Multiple conditions were modeled within a single decision-analytic model by linking multiple single-disease models. Individual discrete event simulation models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for a case study assuming a UK National Health Service perspective. The case study used 3 diseases (heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, and osteoporosis) that were combined within a single linked model. The linked model, with and without correlations between diseases incorporated, simulated the general population aged 45 years and older to compare results in terms of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results. The estimated incremental costs and QALYs for health care interventions differed when 3 diseases were modeled simultaneously (£840; 0.234 QALYs) compared with aggregated results from 3 single-disease models (£408; 0.280QALYs). With correlations between diseases additionally incorporated, both absolute and incremental costs and QALY estimates changed in different directions, suggesting that the inclusion of correlations can alter model results. Discussion. Linking multiple single-disease models provides a methodological option for decision analysts who undertake research on populations with multimorbidity. It also has potential for wider applications in informing decisions on commissioning of health care services and long-term priority setting across diseases and health care programs through providing potentially more accurate estimations of the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?

Models have become a nearly essential component of health technology assessment. This is because the efficacy and safety data available from clinical trials are insufficient to provide the required estimates of impact of new interventions over long periods of time and for other populations and subgroups. Despite more than five decades of use of these decision-analytic models, decision makers are still often presented with poorly validated models and thus trust in their results is impaired. Among the reasons for this vexing situation are the artificial nature of the models, impairing their validation against observable data, the complexity in their formulation and implementation, the lack of data against which to validate the model results, and the challenges of short timelines and insufficient resources. This article addresses this crucial problem of achieving models that produce results that can be trusted and the resulting requirements for validation and transparency, areas where our field is currently deficient. Based on their differing perspectives and experiences, the authors characterize the situation and outline the requirements for improvement and pragmatic solutions to the problem of inadequate validation.

Assessing prognosis and prediction of treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease associated with reduced quality of life and substantial costs. It is unclear which tests and assessment tools allow the best assessment of prognosis in people with early RA and whether or not variables predict the response of patients to different drug treatments. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on the use of selected tests and assessment tools in patients with early RA (1) in the evaluation of a prognosis (review 1) and (2) as predictive markers of treatment response (review 2). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; searched to September 2016), registers, key websites, hand-searching of reference lists of included studies and key systematic reviews and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Review 1 - primary studies on the development, external validation and impact of clinical prediction models for selected outcomes in adult early RA patients. Review 2 - primary studies on the interaction between selected baseline covariates and treatment (conventional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) on salient outcomes in adult early RA patients. RESULTS: Review 1 - 22 model development studies and one combined model development/external validation study reporting 39 clinical prediction models were included. Five external validation studies evaluating eight clinical prediction models for radiographic joint damage were also included. c-statistics from internal validation ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for radiographic progression (different definitions, six studies) and 0.78 to 0.82 for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Predictive performance in external validations varied considerably. Three models [(1) Active controlled Study of Patients receiving Infliximab for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (ASPIRE) C-reactive protein (ASPIRE CRP), (2) ASPIRE erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASPIRE ESR) and (3) Behandelings Strategie (BeSt)] were externally validated using the same outcome definition in more than one population. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis suggested substantial uncertainty in the expected predictive performance of models in a new sample of patients. Review 2 - 12 studies were identified. Covariates examined included anti-citrullinated protein/peptide anti-body (ACPA) status, smoking status, erosions, rheumatoid factor status, C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen joint count (SJC), body mass index and vascularity of synovium on power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS). Outcomes examined included erosions/radiographic progression, disease activity, physical function and Disease Activity Score-28 remission. There was statistical evidence to suggest that ACPA status, SJC and PDUS status at baseline may be treatment effect modifiers, but not necessarily that they are prognostic of response for all treatments. Most of the results were subject to considerable uncertainty and were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis in review 1 was limited by the availability of only a small number of external validation studies. Studies rarely investigated the interaction between predictors and treatment. SUGGESTED RESEARCH PRIORITIES: Collaborative research (including the use of individual participant data) is needed to further develop and externally validate the clinical prediction models. The clinical prediction models should be validated with respect to individual treatments. Future assessments of treatment by covariate interactions should follow good statistical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Review 1 - uncertainty remains over the optimal prediction model(s) for use in clinical practice. Review 2 - in general, there was insufficient evidence that the effect of treatment depended on baseline characteristics. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042402. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sarilumab for Previously-Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Sanofi Genzyme) of sarilumab (SAR; Kevzara®) to submit evidence of its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for previously treated moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 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 effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for SAR was based predominantly on five randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of SAR against adalimumab, tocilizumab or placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of SAR against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed three network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: two in patients who had had an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) (one for combination therapies and one for monotherapies) and the other one in patients who had had an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis). The company's NMAs concluded that SAR in combination with cDMARDs or as monotherapy has a statistically superior efficacy to cDMARDs and a comparable efficacy to most biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in both populations. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of SAR from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services in seven different populations: (1) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs (cDMARD-IR); (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA for whom methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to a TNFi (TNFi-IR); (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) is not an option; (5) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (6) TNFi-IR patients after RTX; and (7) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA whose 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) is between 4.0 and 5.1. The company's economic evaluation resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) lower than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy versus its comparators when the comparators were less effective, and it resulted in cost savings higher than £60,000 per QALY lost when SAR was less effective, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible (where the ICER for SAR + MTX compared with RTX + MTX was £130,691 per QALY gained) and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0 (where the ICER of SAR + MTX compared with MTX was £38,254 per QALY gained). Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying two changes to the company's model: (1) use of a latent class approach to model Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) progression for patients on cDMARDs; and (2) amendment of the company's modelling of patient progression from moderate to severe RA. The ICERs estimated by the ERG's exploratory analyses for SAR + MTX increased to £171,466 per QALY gained when compared with RTX + MTX in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible, and to £63,438 per QALY gained when compared with MTX in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0. The Appraisal Committee concluded that SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered populations, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0.

What is the added value of ultrasound joint examination for monitoring synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis and can it be used to guide treatment decisions? A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Synovitis (inflamed joint synovial lining) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be assessed by clinical examination (CE) or ultrasound (US). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the added value of US, compared with CE alone, in RA synovitis in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to October 2015. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review sought RA studies that compared additional US with CE. Heterogeneity of the studies with regard to interventions, comparators and outcomes precluded meta-analyses. Systematic searches for studies of cost-effectiveness and US and treatment-tapering studies (not necessarily including US) were undertaken. MATHEMATICAL MODEL: A model was constructed that estimated, for patients in whom drug tapering was considered, the reduction in costs of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and serious infections at which the addition of US had a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £20,000 and £30,000. Furthermore, the reduction in the costs of DMARDs at which US becomes cost neutral was also estimated. For patients in whom dose escalation was being considered, the reduction in number of patients escalating treatment and in serious infections at which the addition of US had a cost per QALY gained of £20,000 and £30,000 was estimated. The reduction in number of patients escalating treatment for US to become cost neutral was also estimated. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies were included. Two randomised controlled trials compared adding US to a Disease Activity Score (DAS)-based treat-to-target strategy for early RA patients. The addition of power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) to a Disease Activity Score 28 joints-based treat-to-target strategy in the Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (TaSER) trial resulted in no significant between-group difference for change in Disease Activity Score 44 joints (DAS44). This study found that significantly more patients in the PDUS group attained DAS44 remission (p = 0.03). The Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis (ARCTIC) trial found that the addition of PDUS and grey-scale ultrasound (GSUS) to a DAS-based strategy did not produce a significant between-group difference in the primary end point: composite DAS of < 1.6, no swollen joints and no progression in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdHSS). The ARCTIC trial did find that the erosion score of the vdHS had a significant advantage for the US group (p = 0.04). In the TaSER trial there was no significant group difference for erosion. Other studies suggested that PDUS was significantly associated with radiographic progression and that US had added value for wrist and hand joints rather than foot and ankle joints. Heterogeneity between trials made conclusions uncertain. No studies were identified that reported the cost-effectiveness of US in monitoring synovitis. The model estimated that an average reduction of 2.5% in the costs of biological DMARDs would be sufficient to offset the costs of 3-monthly US. The money could not be recouped if oral methotrexate was the only drug used. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of the trials precluded meta-analysis. Therefore, no summary estimates of effect were available. Additional costs and health-related quality of life decrements, relating to a flare following tapering or disease progression, have not been included. The feasibility of increased US monitoring has not been assessed. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that US monitoring of synovitis could provide a cost-effective approach to selecting RA patients for treatment tapering or escalation avoidance. Considerable uncertainty exists for all conclusions. Future research priorities include evaluating US monitoring of RA synovitis in longitudinal clinical studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017216. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: 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 invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 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 on the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the CS for BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company's NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company's probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG's NMA results were broadly comparable with the company's results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. 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). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.