Assessing Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records for Health Technology Assessment: The SUITABILITY Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

This ISPOR Good Practices report provides a framework for assessing the suitability of electronic health records data for use in health technology assessments (HTAs). Although electronic health record (EHR) data can fill evidence gaps and improve decisions, several important limitations can affect its validity and relevance. The ISPOR framework includes 2 components: data delineation and data fitness for purpose. Data delineation provides a complete understanding of the data and an assessment of its trustworthiness by describing (1) data characteristics; (2) data provenance; and (3) data governance. Fitness for purpose comprises (1) data reliability items, ie, how accurate and complete the estimates are for answering the question at hand and (2) data relevance items, which assess how well the data are suited to answer the particular question from a decision-making perspective. The report includes a checklist specific to EHR data reporting: the ISPOR SUITABILITY Checklist. It also provides recommendations for HTA agencies and policy makers to improve the use of EHR-derived data over time. The report concludes with a discussion of limitations and future directions in the field, including the potential impact from the substantial and rapid advances in the diffusion and capabilities of large language models and generative artificial intelligence. The report's immediate audiences are HTA evidence developers and users. We anticipate that it will also be useful to other stakeholders, particularly regulators and manufacturers, in the future.

The role of quantitative bias analysis for nonrandomized comparisons in health technology assessment: recommendations from an expert workshop.

The use of treatment effects derived from nonrandomized studies (NRS) in health technology assessment (HTA) is growing. NRS carry an inherently greater risk of bias than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although bias can be mitigated to some extent through appropriate approaches to study design and analysis, concerns around data availability and quality and the absence of randomization mean residual biases typically render the interpretation of NRS challenging. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) methods are a range of methods that use additional, typically external, data to understand the potential impact that unmeasured confounding and other biases including selection bias and time biases can have on the results (i.e., treatment effects) from an NRS. QBA has the potential to support HTA bodies in using NRS to support decision-making by quantifying the magnitude, direction, and uncertainty of biases. However, there are a number of key aspects of the use of QBA in HTA which have received limited discussion. This paper presents recommendations for the use of QBA in HTA developed using a multi-stakeholder workshop of experts in HTA with a focus on QBA for unmeasured confounding.

Does bariatric surgery reduce future hospital costs? A propensity score-matched analysis using UK Biobank Study data.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the hospital costs among persons with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery compared with those without bariatric surgery. METHODS: We analysed the UK Biobank Cohort study linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, for all adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery at National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland, or Wales from 2006 to 2017. Surgery patients were matched with controls who did not have bariatric surgery using propensity scores approach with a ratio of up to 1-to-5 by year. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to correct for potential informative censoring. Annual and cumulative hospital costs were assessed for the surgery and control groups. RESULTS: We identified 348 surgical patients (198 gastric bypass, 73 sleeve gastrectomy, 77 gastric banding) during the study period. In total, 324 surgical patients and 1506 matched control participants were included after propensity score matching. Mean 5-year cumulative hospital costs were €11,659 for 348 surgical patients. Compared with controls, surgical patients (n = 324) had significantly higher inpatient expenditures in the surgery year (€7289 vs. €2635, P < 0.001), but lower costs in the subsequent 4 years. The 5-year cumulative costs were €11,176 for surgical patients and €8759 for controls (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery significantly increased the inpatient costs in the surgery year, but was associated with decreased costs in the subsequent 4 years. However, any cost savings made up to 4 years were not enough to compensate for the initial surgical expenditure.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dopamine Agonists and Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient-rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone. METHODS: PD MED is a pragmatic, open-label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs between levodopa and levodopa-sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30; P < 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671-£4109; P < 0.01) than levodopa-sparing therapies, the difference in costs driven by the higher costs of levodopa-sparing therapies. There were no significant differences in the costs of inpatient, social care, and institutional care between arms. There was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; -0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628-£3015; P < 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists. There were no significant differences between arms for other costs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost-effective compared with levodopa-sparing therapies. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was more cost-effective, with similar quality-adjusted life-years but lower costs than dopamine agonists. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years. METHODS: Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247). FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI -0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (-£910, 95% CI -1503 to -317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR. INTERPRETATION: Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering with statins and ezetimibe in chronic kidney disease.

Statin-based treatments reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD), but it is unclear which regimen is the most cost-effective. We used the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) CKD-CVD policy model to evaluate the effect of statins and ezetimibe on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health care costs in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). Net costs below $100,000/QALY (US) or £20,000/QALY (UK) were considered cost-effective. We investigated statin regimens with or without ezetimibe 10 mg. Treatment effects on cardiovascular risk were estimated per 1-mmol/L reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as reported in the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis, and reductions in LDL cholesterol were estimated for each statin/ezetimibe regimen. In the US, atorvastatin 40 mg ($0.103/day as of January 2019) increased life expectancy by 0.23 to 0.31 QALYs in non-dialysis patients with stages 3B to 5 CKD, at a net cost of $20,300 to $78,200/QALY. Adding ezetimibe 10 mg ($0.203/day) increased life expectancy by an additional 0.05 to 0.07 QALYs, at a net cost of $43,600 to $91,500/QALY. The cost-effectiveness findings and policy implications in the UK were similar. In summary, in patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD, the evidence suggests that statin/ezetimibe combination therapy is a cost-effective treatment to reduce the risk of CVD.

Body mass index and use and costs of primary care services among women aged 55-79 years in England: a cohort and linked data study.

BACKGROUND: Excess weight is associated with poor health and increased healthcare costs. There are no reliable data describing the association between BMI and the use and costs of primary care services in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Among 69,440 participants in the Million Women Study with primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between April 2006 (mean age 64 years) and March 2014, the annual rates and costs of their primary care consultations, prescription medications, and diagnostic and monitoring tests were estimated in relation to their self-reported body mass index (BMI) at recruitment in 1996-2001 (mean age 56 years). Associations of BMI with annual costs were projected to all women in England aged 55-79 years in 2013. RESULTS: Over an average follow-up of 6.0 years, annual rates and mean costs were lowest for women with a BMI of 20 to <22.5 kg/m2 for consultations (7.0 consultations, 99% CI 6.8-7.1; £288, £280-£295) and prescription medications (27.0 prescribed items, 26.0-27.9; £227, £216-£237). Above 20 kg/m2, a 2 kg/m2 higher BMI (a 5 kg change in weight for a woman of average height) was associated with 5.2% (4.8-5.6) and 9.9% (9.2-10.6) higher mean annual consultation and prescription medication costs, respectively. Annual rates and mean costs of diagnostic and monitoring tests were similar for women with different BMIs. Among all women aged 55-79 years in England, excess weight accounted for an estimated 11% (£229 million/£2.2 billion) of all consultation costs and 20% (£384 million/£1.9 billion) of all prescription medication costs, of which 27% were for diabetes drugs, 19% for circulatory system drugs, and 13% for analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Excess body weight is associated with higher use and costs of primary care services among women in England. Reducing the prevalence of excess weight could improve the health of women and reduce pressures on primary care.

Cost-effectiveness of Simvastatin plus Ezetimibe for Cardiovascular Prevention in CKD: Results of the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP).

BACKGROUND: Simvastatin, 20mg, plus ezetimibe, 10mg, daily (simvastatin plus ezetimibe) reduced major atherosclerotic events in patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP), but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in SHARP, a randomized controlled trial. SETTING & POPULATION: 9,270 patients with CKD randomly assigned to simvastatin plus ezetimibe versus placebo; participants in categories by 5-year cardiovascular risk (low, <10%; medium, 10%-<20%; or high, ≥20%) and CKD stage (3, 4, 5 not on dialysis, or on dialysis therapy). MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMELINE: Assessment during SHARP follow-up from the UK perspective; long-term projections. INTERVENTION: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe (2015 UK £1.19 per day) during 4.9 years' median follow-up in SHARP; scenario analyses with high-intensity statin regimens (2015 UK £0.05-£1.06 per day). OUTCOMES: Additional health care costs per major atherosclerotic event avoided and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In SHARP, the proportional reductions per 1mmol/L of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in all major atherosclerotic events of 20% (95% CI, 6%-32%) and in the costs of vascular hospital episodes of 17% (95% CI, 4%-28%) were similar across participant categories by cardiovascular risk and CKD stage. The 5-year reduction in major atherosclerotic events per 1,000 participants ranged from 10 in low-risk to 58 in high-risk patients and from 28 in CKD stage 3 to 36 in patients on dialysis therapy. The net cost per major atherosclerotic event avoided with simvastatin plus ezetimibe compared to no LDL-lowering regimen ranged from £157,060 in patients at low risk to £15,230 in those at high risk (£30,500-£39,600 per QALY); and from £47,280 in CKD stage 3 to £28,180 in patients on dialysis therapy (£13,000-£43,300 per QALY). In scenario analyses, generic high-intensity statin regimens were estimated to yield similar benefits at substantially lower cost. LIMITATIONS: High-intensity statin-alone regimens were not studied in SHARP. CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe prevented atherosclerotic events in SHARP, but other less costly statin regimens are likely to be more cost-effective for reducing cardiovascular risk in CKD.

What is the impact of chronic kidney disease stage and cardiovascular disease on the annual cost of hospital care in moderate-to-severe kidney disease?

BACKGROUND: Reliable estimates of the impacts of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage, with and without cardiovascular disease, on hospital costs are needed to inform health policy. METHODS: The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) randomized trial prospectively collected information on kidney disease progression, serious adverse events and hospital care use in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe CKD. In a secondary analysis of SHARP data, the impact of participants' CKD stage, non-fatal cardiovascular events and deaths on annual hospital costs (i.e. all hospital admissions, routine dialysis treatments and recorded outpatient/day-case attendances in United Kingdom 2011 prices) were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: 7,246 SHARP patients (2,498 on dialysis at baseline) from Europe, North America, and Australasia contributed 28,261 years of data. CKD patients without diabetes or vascular disease incurred annual hospital care costs ranging from £403 (95% confidence interval: 345-462) in CKD stages 1-3B to £525 (449-602) in CKD stage 5 (not on dialysis). Patients in receipt of maintenance dialysis incurred annual hospital costs of £18,986 (18,620-19,352) in the year of initiation and £23,326 (23,231-23,421) annually thereafter. Patients with a functioning kidney transplant incurred £24,602 (24,027-25,178) in hospital care costs in the year of transplantation and £1,148 (978-1,318) annually thereafter. Non-fatal major vascular events increased annual costs in the year of the event by £6,133 (5,608-6,658) for patients on dialysis and by £4,350 (3,819-4,880) for patients not on dialysis, and were associated with increased costs, though to a lesser extent, in subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS: Renal replacement therapy and major vascular events are the main contributors to the high hospital care costs in moderate-to-severe CKD. These estimates of hospital costs can be used to inform health policy in moderate-to-severe CKD.

Are value of information methods ready for prime time? An application to alternative treatment strategies for NSTEMI patients.

OBJECTIVES: The use of value of information methods to inform trial design has been widely advocated but there have been few empirical applications of these methods and there is little evidence they are widely used in decision making. This study considers the usefulness of value of information models in the context of a real clinical decision problem relating to alternative diagnostic strategies for patients with a recent non-ST elevated myocardial infarction. METHODS: A pretrial economic model is constructed to consider the cost-effectiveness of two competing strategies: coronary angiography alone or in conjunction with fractional flow reserve measurement. A closed-form solution to the expected benefits of information is used with optimal sample size estimated for a range of models reflecting increasingly realistic assumptions and alternative decision contexts. RESULTS: Fractional flow reserve measurement is expected to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 1,621, however, there is considerable uncertainty in this estimate and consequently a large expected value to reducing this uncertainty via a trial. The recommended sample size is strongly affected by the reality of the assumptions of the expected value of information (EVI) model and the decision context. CONCLUSIONS: Value of information models can provide a simple and flexible approach to clinical trial design and are more consistent with the constraints and objectives of the healthcare system than traditional frequentist approaches. However, the variation in sample size estimates demonstrates that it is essential that appropriate model parameters and decision contexts are used in their application.

Evaluation of US oncology electronic health record real-world data to reduce uncertainty in health technology appraisals: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Examine whether data from early access to medicines in the USA can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology assessments (HTA) in oncology. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology-based community and academic treatment centres in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients present in a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database. INTERVENTIONS: Cancer drugs that underwent NICE technology appraisal (TA) between 2014 and 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The count and follow-up time of US patients, available in the EHR, who were exposed to cancer drugs of interest in the period between Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and dates relevant to the NICE appraisal process. RESULTS: In 59 of 60 TAs analysed, the cancer therapy was approved in the USA before the final appraisal by NICE. The median time from FDA approval to the publication of NICE recommendations was 18.5 months, at which time the US EHR-derived database had, on average, 269 patients (SD=356) exposed to the new therapy, with a median of 75.3 person-years (IQR: 13.1-173) in time-at-risk. A case study generated evidence on real-world overall survival and treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Across different cancer therapies, there was substantial variability in US real-world data accumulated between FDA approval and NICE decision milestones. The applicability of these data to generate evidence for HTA decision-making should be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the intended HTA use case.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management.

How the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected prevention and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not fully understood. In this study, we used medication data as a proxy for CVD management using routinely collected, de-identified, individual-level data comprising 1.32 billion records of community-dispensed CVD medications from England, Scotland and Wales between April 2018 and July 2021. Here we describe monthly counts of prevalent and incident medications dispensed, as well as percentage changes compared to the previous year, for several CVD-related indications, focusing on hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes. We observed a decline in the dispensing of antihypertensive medications between March 2020 and July 2021, with 491,306 fewer individuals initiating treatment than expected. This decline was predicted to result in 13,662 additional CVD events, including 2,281 cases of myocardial infarction and 3,474 cases of stroke, should individuals remain untreated over their lifecourse. Incident use of lipid-lowering medications decreased by 16,744 patients per month during the first half of 2021 as compared to 2019. By contrast, incident use of medications to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, other than insulin, increased by approximately 623 patients per month for the same time period. In light of these results, methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment for CVD risk factors and remain undiagnosed are urgently required to avoid large numbers of excess future CVD events, an indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment.

Evidence generated from nonrandomized studies (NRS) is increasingly submitted to health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Unmeasured confounding is a primary concern with this type of evidence, as it may result in biased treatment effect estimates, which has led to much criticism of NRS by HTA agencies. Quantitative bias analyses are a group of methods that have been developed in the epidemiological literature to quantify the impact of unmeasured confounding and adjust effect estimates from NRS. Key considerations for application in HTA proposed in this article reflect the need to balance methodological complexity with ease of application and interpretation, and the need to ensure the methods fit within the existing frameworks used to assess nonrandomized evidence by HTA bodies.

Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in cost-effectiveness modelling.

Due to uncertainty regarding the potential impact of unmeasured confounding, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often disregard evidence from nonrandomized studies when considering new technologies. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) methods provide a means to quantify this uncertainty but have not been widely used in the HTA setting, particularly in the context of cost-effectiveness modelling (CEM). This study demonstrated the application of an aggregate and patient-level QBA approach to quantify and adjust for unmeasured confounding in a simulated nonrandomized comparison of survival outcomes. Application of the QBA output within a CEM through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and under different scenarios of knowledge of an unmeasured confounder demonstrates the potential value of QBA in HTA.

Using primary care data to assess comparative effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the UK: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib) for prevention of stroke. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A comparative cohort study in UK general practice data from The Health Improvement Network database. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Before matching, 5655 patients ≥18 years with nonvalvular AFib who initiated at least one DOAC between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2020 were included. DOACs of interest included apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban and dabigatran, with the primary comparison between apixaban and rivaroxaban. Initiators of DOACs were defined as new users with no record of prescription for any DOAC during 12 months before index date. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic). Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischaemic attacks (TIA), major bleeding events and a composite angina/MI/stroke (AMS) endpoint. RESULTS: Compared with rivaroxaban, patients initiating apixaban showed similar rates of stroke (HR: 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22), MI (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.68), TIA (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.72) and AMS (HR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.27). Apixaban initiators showed lower rates of major bleeding events (HR: 0.60; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with nonvalvular AFib, apixaban was as effective as rivaroxaban in reducing rate of stroke and safer in terms of major bleeding episodes. This head-to-head comparison supports conclusions drawn from indirect comparisons of DOAC trials against warfarin and demonstrates the potential for real-world evidence to fill evidence gaps and reduce uncertainty in both health technology assessment decision-making and clinical guideline development.

Common Problems, Common Data Model Solutions: Evidence Generation for Health Technology Assessment.

There is growing interest in using observational data to assess the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of medical technologies, but operational, technical, and methodological challenges limit its more widespread use. Common data models and federated data networks offer a potential solution to many of these problems. The open-source Observational and Medical Outcomes Partnerships (OMOP) common data model standardises the structure, format, and terminologies of otherwise disparate datasets, enabling the execution of common analytical code across a federated data network in which only code and aggregate results are shared. While common data models are increasingly used in regulatory decision making, relatively little attention has been given to their use in health technology assessment (HTA). We show that the common data model has the potential to facilitate access to relevant data, enable multidatabase studies to enhance statistical power and transfer results across populations and settings to meet the needs of local HTA decision makers, and validate findings. The use of open-source and standardised analytics improves transparency and reduces coding errors, thereby increasing confidence in the results. Further engagement from the HTA community is required to inform the appropriate standards for mapping data to the common data model and to design tools that can support evidence generation and decision making.

Impact of the 2003 to 2018 Population Salt Intake Reduction Program in England: A Modeling Study.

[Figure: see text].

The use of nonrandomized evidence to estimate treatment effects in health technology assessment.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by nonrandomized studies, but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from eight countries as part of the EU's Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA program (work package six). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive and structured reporting of nonrandomized studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by nonrandomized designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data.

BMI and Cause-Specific Hospital Admissions and Costs: The UK Biobank Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of BMI on cause-specific hospital admissions and costs in men and women is not well understood, and this study's aim is to address this. METHODS: For 451,320 men and women aged 40 years or older recruited into the UK Biobank, followed up for 6 years on average, this study estimated annual rates and costs (at 2016 UK prices) of hospital admissions, overall and by diagnostic category (using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapters), in relation to BMI. RESULTS: Among those who were never smokers, a 2-kg/m2 higher BMI (above 20 kg/m2 ) was associated with a 6.2% (99% CI: 5.3% to 7.2%) higher admission rate and an 8.6% (99% CI: 7.3% to 10.0%) higher annual cost in men and with a 5.7% (99% CI: 4.9% to 6.6%) higher admission rate and an 8.4% (99% CI: 7.5% to 9.3%) higher annual cost in women. Higher BMI was associated with higher admission rates and costs for many types of health conditions, particularly for endocrine, skin, and musculoskeletal disorders in both men and women and for circulatory diseases in men. CONCLUSIONS: BMI beyond healthy weight is strongly associated with higher annual rates of hospital admission and higher costs in both men and women across a wide range of health conditions.

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers. DESIGN: This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments. SETTING: Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years. FUTURE WORK: Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247. 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. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Two types of knee replacement are available for patients with arthritis of the inner part of their knee: a partial knee replacement or a total knee replacement. It is not known which replacement offers most benefit for the patient or for the health-care system. WHAT DID WE DO?: We performed a large study involving 528 patients at 27 hospitals with 68 experienced surgeons, in which half of the patients underwent partial knee replacement and the other half underwent total knee replacement. We took yearly scores and measures, including pain, function, whether or not the operation was successful, and the costs of each patient for 5 years. Comparison between treatments was assessed at 5 years post operation. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Good outcomes and relatively few complications were observed after both operations. The measurements taken to assess the clinical benefit were largely very similar between the two groups. Where differences did occur at 5 years, there were only small differences between the two knee replacements and partial knee replacement was generally favoured. Some measurements, however, did show a larger difference between the two groups, including whether or not the operation addressed the patients' problems and whether or not the patient would have the operation again. These measurements were also in favour of partial knee replacement, but caution is required not to overstate importance, as patients in the study knew which device they had had implanted. The number of patients requiring further operations or revision surgery was similar in the two groups. This last finding contrasts with information from previously obtained, mainly non-randomised, studies and is of high relevance. The cost of each operation in relation to the benefit obtained was clearly in favour of partial knee replacement. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Both operations are effective for use in the NHS. There appear to be some modest clinical advantages for patients to undergo partial knee replacement over total knee replacement but, importantly, the study casts doubt over previous concerns on high reoperation rates for partial knee replacement. The study has shown that reoperation rates recorded from different sources (cohort or trials) can be conflicting.