Estimation of health-related utility (EQ-5D index) in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis to evaluate health gain associated with sublingual grass allergen immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Grass allergen immunotherapy (AIT) reduces symptom severity in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) but its impact on general health-related utility has not been characterised for the purposes of economic evaluation. The aim of this study was to model the preferred measure of utility, EQ-5D index, from symptom severity and estimate incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with SQ-standardised grass immunotherapy tablet (GRAZAX®, 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU, ALK, Denmark). METHODS: Data were analysed from five consecutive pollen seasons in a randomised placebo controlled trial of GRAZAX®. Binomial and Gaussian mixed effects modelling related weekly EQ-5D index score to daily symptom and medication scores (DSS & DMS respectively). In turn, daily EQ-5D index was estimated from ARC symptoms and medication use. RESULTS: DSS and DMS were the principal predictors of 'perfect' health (EQ-5D = 1.000; binomial) and 'imperfect' health (EQ-5D < 1.000; Gaussian). Each unit increase in DSS and DMS reduced the odds of 'perfect' health (EQ-5D = 1.000) by 27% and 16% respectively, and reduced 'imperfect' health by 0.17 and 0.13, respectively. Gender remained the only other significant main fixed effect (Male odds ratio [OR] = 1.82). Incremental estimated EQ-5D index utility for GRAZAX® was observed from day -30 to day +70 of the pooled pollen season; mean daily utility for GRAZAX® = 0.938 units (95%CI 0.932-0.943) vs. 0.914 (0.907-0.921) for placebo, an incremental difference of 0.0238 (p < 0.001). This translates into an incremental 0.0324 Quality Adjusted Life Years over the five year study period. CONCLUSIONS: ARC symptoms and medication use are the main predictors of EQ-5D index. The incremental QALYs observed for GRAZAX® may not fully describe the health benefits of this treatment, suggesting that economic modelling may be conservative.

Omega-3 Fatty acids and mortality outcome in patients with and without type 2 diabetes after myocardial infarction: a retrospective, matched-cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding the benefits of omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, most recently in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the impact of licensed, highly purified n-3 fatty acids on all-cause mortality after myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: This was a retrospective, matched-cohort study using data from the General Practice Research Database. Patients initiating treatment with 1 g of n-3 fatty acids in the 90 days after first MI were identified and each matched to 4 nonexposed patients. Progression to death was compared using time-dependent Cox models to account for potential differences in exposure to other cardiovascular risk-modifying treatments. RESULTS: A total of 2466 eligible subjects exposed to n-3 fatty acids were matched. The majority of patients had concurrent treatment with lipid-lowering therapies, antihypertensives, and antiplatelets after first MI, with subjects exposed to n-3 fatty acids having a greater likelihood of concurrent exposure. For those initiating n-3 fatty acids within 90 days of first MI, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 0.782 (95% CI, 0.641-0.995; P = 0.0159); for those initiating treatment within 14 days, the aHR was 0.680 (95% CI, 0.481-0.961; P = 0.0288). In patients with type 2 diabetes at baseline, the aHRs were 0.714 (95% CI, 0.454-1.124) and 0.597 (95% CI, 0.295-1.211) when initiation was within 90 and 14 days, respectively. Use of n-3 fatty acids resulted in a consistent survival benefit under a range of scenarios quantitatively consistent with the overall effect. CONCLUSION: After MI, early treatment with licensed n-3 fatty acids was associated with improvement in all-cause mortality in patients with and without type 2 diabetes, against a background of contemporary cardiovascular risk-modifying treatments.

A comparison of physician-rated disease severity and patient reported outcomes in mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim was to derive health state utility scores in ulcerative colitis (UC) by establishing the relationship between the physician-rated ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) and a patient reported EQ-5D by statistically mapping the two instruments. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial comparing oral plus enema mesalazine treatment with oral mesalazine treatment alone (PINCE), UCDAI and EQ-5D scores were collected in parallel from patients with active UC. From these data, multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate response probabilities to each of the five domains of the EQ-5D index from assessment of UC disease severity using original and abbreviated (no endoscopy) versions of the UCDAI. Predicted EQ-5D responses were converted by Monte Carlo simulation to the EQ-5D index for predicting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The reliability of the algorithm was tested using UCDAI scores from a second mesalazine RCT (PODIUM). RESULTS: The abbreviated-UCDAI showed comparable explanatory performance to the full UCDAI. For patients in remission, mean utility was 0.939, 0.944, and 0.940U for PINCE(estimated), PINCE(observed), and PODIUM, respectively. Mild/moderate and relapsing cases showed mean utilities of 0.801, 0.811, and 0.775, respectively; whilst for those in severe relapse, the mean utilities were 0.630, 0.700 and 0.660 units, respectively. The mean squared error between actual and predicted utilities from observations in PINCE was 0.019. CONCLUSION: Response mapping of UC activity to EQ-5D domains produced reliable estimates of patient-rated health state utility consistent with UCDAI rated severity. Comparing abbreviated-UCDAI and full UCDAI suggests that inclusion of endoscopy scores has limited predictive value in estimating patient HRQoL.

An economic evaluation comparing concomitant oral and topical mesalazine versus oral mesalazine alone in mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis based on results from randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: A previous randomised controlled trial has demonstrated that oral plus topical mesalazine enema is more effective than oral mesalazine alone for achieving clinical remission in mild-to-moderately active extensive ulcerative colitis (UC). To evaluate whether this strategy is cost-effective we conducted an economic evaluation comparing 1 g topical mesalazine in combination with 4 g oral mesalazine compared to 4 g mesalazine monotherapy in mild-to-moderately active UC. METHODS: The economic evaluation was based on the ability to achieve remission using changes from baseline in the ulcerative colitis disease activity instrument (UCDAI). A cost-utility analysis was used where the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years to reflect improved quality of life associated with achieving remission compared with active disease. A simulated Markov model with five health states was constructed to model cost and outcome changes over time: (1) active UC; (2) mesalazine-refractory active UC; (3) steroid-refractory active UC; (4) infliximab-responsive active UC; and (5) remission. To reflect parameter uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted by varying relevant clinical parameters. RESULTS: Average treatment costs required to transition a patient from active UC to remission using oral and topical mesalazine compared with oral alone were £1812 and £2390, respectively. Improved remission rates attributed to oral and topical mesalazine resulted in moderate improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to oral mesalazine alone. Disaggregation of medical costs indicated that medical consultations and diagnostic costs were similar for both treatment arms. An abbreviated analysis which considered costs up to steroid-refractory patients in subacute UC indicated that combination therapy offered a cost-savings of £285 over 16 weeks of therapy compared with monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the addition of 1 g topical mesalazine results in significant cost-savings and moderate quality of life improvements. We have also shown that irrespective of which treatment modality is used in steroid-refractory patients (eg, infliximab, azathioprine, ciclosporine) that topical mesalazine is cost-saving.

Economic analysis of the implementation of autologous transfusion technologies throughout England.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide the first estimates of the costs and effects of the large scale introduction of autologous transfusion technologies into the United Kingdom National Health Service. METHODS: A model was constructed to allow disparate data sources to be combined to produce estimates of the scale, costs, and effects of introducing four interventions. The interventions considered were preparing patients for surgery (PPS) clinics, preoperative autologous donation (PAD), intraoperative cell salvage (ICS), and postoperative cell salvage (PoCS). RESULTS: The key determinants of cost per operation are the anticipated level of reductions in blood use, the mean level of blood use, mean length of stay, and the cost of the technology. The results show the potential for considerable reductions in blood use. The greatest reductions are anticipated to be through the use of PPS and ICS. Vascular surgery, transplant surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery appear to be the specialties that will benefit most from the technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Several simplifications were used in the production of these estimates; consequently, caution should be used in their interpretation and use. Despite the drawbacks in the methods used in the study, the model shows the scale of the issue, the importance of gathering better data, and the form that data must take. Such preliminary modeling exercises are essential for rational policy development and to direct future research and discussion among stakeholders.