Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib dose escalation for the treatment of unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours that have progressed on treatment at a dose of 400 mg/day: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib dose escalation is advocated for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) treatment, but its effectiveness compared with sunitinib and best supportive care (BSC) after failure at the 400 mg/day dose is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib at escalated doses of 600 or 800 mg/day for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic GISTs whose disease had progressed on 400 mg/day. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including MEDLlNE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index, Health Management Information Consortium and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, were searched until September 2009. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out according to standard methods. An economic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of seven alternative pathways for treating patients with unresectable and/or metastatic GISTs. RESULTS: Five primary studies involving 669 people were included for clinical effectiveness; four reported imatinib and one reported sunitinib. The data were essentially observational as none of the studies was designed to specifically assess treatment of patients whose disease had progressed on 400 mg/day imatinib. For 600 mg/day imatinib, between 26% and 42% of patients showed either a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD). Median time to progression was 1.7 months (range 0.7-24.9 months). For 800 mg/day imatinib, between 29% and 33% of patients showed either a PR or SD. Median overall survival (OS) was 19 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 13 to 23 months]. Progression-free survival ranged from 81 days to 5 months (95% CI 2 to 10 months). Median duration of response was 153 days (range 37-574 days). Treatment progression led to 88% discontinuations but between 16% and 31% of patients required a dose reduction, and 23% required a dose delay. There was a statistically significant increase in the severity of fatigue (p < 0.001) and anaemia (p = 0.015) following dose escalation. For sunitinib, median OS was 90 weeks (95% CI 73 to 106 weeks). For the cost-effectiveness review, only one full-text study and one abstract were identified, comparing imatinib at an escalated dose, sunitinib and BSC, although neither was based on a UK context. The definition of BSC was not consistent across the studies, and the pattern of resources (including drugs for treatment) and measures of effectiveness also varied. Within the model, BSC (assumed to include continuing medication to prevent tumour flare) was the least costly and least effective. It would be the care pathway most likely to be cost-effective when the cost per quality-adjusted life-year threshold was < £25,000. Imatinib at 600 mg/day was most likely to be cost-effective at a threshold between £25,000 and £45,000. Imatinib at 600 mg/day followed by further escalation followed by sunitinib was most likely to be cost-effective at a threshold > £45,000. LIMITATIONS: The evidence base was sparse, data were non-randomised and potentially biased. The economic model results are surrounded by a considerable degree of uncertainty and open to biases of unknown magnitude and direction. CONCLUSIONS: Around one-third of patients with unresectable and/or metastatic GIST, who fail on 400 mg/day of imatinib, may show response or SD with escalated doses. Between a threshold of £25,000 and £45,000, provision of an escalated dose of imatinib would be most likely to be cost-effective. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited evidence available on outcomes following imatinib dose escalation or sunitinib for this group of patients. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) through systematic review and economic modelling. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, electronic databases and the websites of relevant professional organisations and manufacturers, and the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the UKCRN Portfolio Database. STUDY SELECTION: The study comprised three distinct elements. (1) A survey of 188 women with SUI to identify outcomes of importance to them (activities of daily living; sex, hygiene and lifestyle issues; emotional health; and the availability of services). (2) A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-surgical treatments for SUI to find out which are most effective by comparing results of trials (direct pairwise comparisons) and by modelling results (mixed-treatment comparisons - MTCs). A total of 88 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs reporting data from 9721 women were identified, considering five generic interventions [pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), electrical stimulation (ES), vaginal cones (VCs), bladder training (BT) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medications], in many variations and combinations. Data were available for 37 interventions and 68 treatment comparisons by direct pairwise assessment. Mixed-treatment comparison models compared 14 interventions, using data from 55 trials (6608 women). (3) Economic modelling, using a Markov model, to find out which combinations of treatments (treatment pathways) are most cost-effective for SUI. DATA EXTRACTION: Titles and abstracts identified were assessed by one reviewer and full-text copies of all potentially relevant reports independently assessed by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus or arbitration by a third person. RESULTS: Direct pairwise comparison and MTC analysis showed that the treatments were more effective than no treatment. Delivering PFMT in a more intense fashion, either through extra sessions or with biofeedback (BF), appeared to be the most effective treatment [PFMT extra sessions vs no treatment (NT) odds ratio (OR) 10.7, 95% credible interval (CrI) 5.03 to 26.2; PFMT + BF vs NT OR 12.3, 95% CrI 5.35 to 32.7]. Only when success was measured in terms of improvement was there evidence that basic PFMT was better than no treatment (PFMT basic vs NT OR 4.47, 95% CrI 2.03 to 11.9). Analysis of cost-effectiveness showed that for cure rates, the strategy using lifestyle changes and PFMT with extra sessions followed by tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) (lifestyle advice-PFMT extra sessions-TVT) had a probability of greater than 70% of being considered cost-effective for all threshold values for willingness to pay for a QALY up to 50,000 pounds. For improvement rates, lifestyle advice-PFMT extra sessions-TVT had a probability of greater than 50% of being considered cost-effective when society's willingness to pay for an additional QALY was more than 10,000 pounds. The results were most sensitive to changes in the long-term performance of PFMT and also in the relative effectiveness of basic PFMT and PFMT with extra sessions. LIMITATIONS: Although a large number of studies were identified, few data were available for most comparisons and long-term data were sparse. Challenges for evidence synthesis were the lack of consensus on the most appropriate method for assessing incontinence and intervention protocols that were complex and varied considerably across studies. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive forms of PFMT appear worthwhile, but further research is required to define an optimal form of more intensive therapy that is feasible and efficient for the NHS to provide, along with further definitive evidence from large, well-designed studies.