Prescribing high-dose lipid-lowering therapy early to avoid subsequent cardiovascular events: is this a cost-effective strategy?

BACKGROUND: While evidence shows high-dose statins reduce cardiovascular events compared with moderate doses in individuals with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), many primary care trusts (PCT) advocate the use of generic simvastatin 40 mg/day for these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 28 RCTs were synthesized using a mixed treatment comparison model. A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments taking into account adherence and the likely reduction in cost for atorvastatin when the patent expires. There is a clear dose-response: rosuvastatin 40 mg/day produces the greatest reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (56%) followed by atorvastatin 80 mg/day (52%), and simvastatin 40 mg/day (37%). Using a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, if adherence levels in general practice are similar to those observed in RCTs, all three higher dose statins would be considered cost-effective compared to simvastatin 40 mg/day. Using the net benefits of the treatments, rosuvastatin 40 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. If the cost of atorvastatin reduces in line with that observed for simvastatin, atorvastatin 80 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show that current PCT policies intended to minimize primary care drug acquisition costs result in suboptimal care.

Diagnostic management strategies for adults and children with minor head injury: a systematic review and an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with minor head injury [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 13-15] have a small but important risk of intracranial injury (ICI) that requires early identification and neurosurgical treatment. Diagnostic assessment can use either a clinical decision rule or unstructured assessment of individual clinical features to identify those who are at risk of ICI and in need of computerised tomography (CT) scanning and/or hospital admission. Selective use of CT investigations helps minimise unnecessary radiation exposure and resource use, but can lead to missed opportunities to provide early treatment for ICI. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of decision rules, individual clinical characteristics, skull radiography and biomarkers, and the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for minor head injury (MHI). DATA SOURCES: Several electronic databases [including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE and The Cochrane Library] were searched from inception to April 2009 (updated searches to March 2010 were conducted on the MEDLINE databases only). Searches were supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles (including citation searching) and contacting experts in the field. For each of the systematic reviews the following studies were included (1) cohort studies of patients with MHI in which a clinical decision rule or individual clinical characteristics (including biomarkers and skull radiography) were compared with a reference standard test for ICI or need for neurosurgical intervention and (2) controlled trials comparing alternative management strategies for MHI. REVIEW METHODS: Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool (for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy) or criteria recommended by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (for the assessment of management practices). Where sufficient data existed, a meta-analysis was undertaken to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters. A decision-analysis model was developed using Simul8 2008 Professional software (Simul8 Corporation, Boston, MA, USA) to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued by management strategies for MHI. The model took a lifetime horizon and NHS perspective. Estimates of the benefits of early treatment, harm of radiation exposure and long-term costs were obtained through literature reviews. Initial analysis was deterministic, but probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed. Secondary analyses were undertaken to explore the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic strategies and to determine the cost-effectiveness of scenarios involving hospital admission. RESULTS: The literature searches identified 8003 citations. Of these, 93 full-text papers were included for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy and one for the assessment of management practices. The quality of studies and reporting was generally poor. The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was the most widely validated adult rule, with sensitivity of 99-100% and 80-100% for neurosurgical and any ICI, respectively (high- or medium-risk criteria), and specificity of 39-51%. Rules for children had high sensitivity and acceptable specificity in derivation cohorts, but limited validation. Depressed, basal or radiological skull fracture and post-traumatic seizure (PTS) [positive likelihood ratio (PLR) > 10]; focal neurological deficit, persistent vomiting, decrease in GCS and previous neurosurgery (PLR 5-10); and fall from a height, coagulopathy, chronic alcohol use, age > 60 years, pedestrian motor vehicle accident (MVA), any seizure, undefined vomiting, amnesia, GCS < 14 and GCS < 15 (PLR 2-5) increased the likelihood of ICI in adults. Depressed or basal skull fracture and focal neurological deficit (PLR > 10), coagulopathy, PTS and previous neurosurgery (PLR 5-10), visual symptoms, bicycle and pedestrian MVA, any seizure, loss of consciousness, vomiting, severe or persistent headache, amnesia, GCS < 14, GCS < 15, intoxication and radiological skull fracture (PLR 2-5) increased the likelihood of ICI in children. S100 calcium-binding protein B had pooled sensitivity of 96.8% [95% highest-density region (HDR) 93.8% to 98.6%] and specificity of 42.5% (95% HDR 31.0% to 54.2%). The only controlled trial showed that early CT and discharge is cheaper and at least as effective as hospital admission. Economic analysis showed that selective CT use dominated 'CT all' and 'discharge all' strategies. The optimal strategies were the CCHR (adults) and the CHALICE (Children's Head injury Algorithm for the prediction of Important Clinical Events) or NEXUS II (National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II) rule (children). The sensitivity and specificity of the CCHR (99% and 47%, respectively) represented an appropriate trade-off of these parameters. Hospital admission dominated discharge home for patients with non-neurosurgical injury, but cost £39 M per QALY for clinically normal patients with a normal CT. CONCLUSIONS: The CCHR is widely validated and cost-effective for adults. Decision rules for children appear cost-effective, but need further validation. Hospital admission is cost-effective for patients with abnormal, but not normal, CT. The main research priorities are to (1) validate decision rules for children; (2) determine the prognosis and treatment benefit for non-neurosurgical injuries; (3) evaluate the use of S100B alongside a validated decision rule; (4) evaluate the diagnosis and outcomes of anticoagulated patients with MHI; and (5) evaluate the implementation of guidelines, clinical decision rules and diagnostic strategies. Formal expected value of sample information analysis would be recommended to appraise the cost-effectiveness of future studies. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.

For many years, the standard treatment for stage III colon cancer has been surgical resection followed by 5-fluorouracil in combination with folinic acid (5-FU/LV). Ongoing clinical trial evidence suggests that capecitabine and oxaliplatin (in combination with 5-FU/LV) may improve disease-free survival and overall survival when compared against 5-FU/LV alone in the adjuvant setting. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness profiles of these two regimens in comparison to standard chemotherapy, using evidence from two international randomised controlled trials. Survival modelling techniques were employed to extrapolate survival curves from the two trials in order to estimate the long-term benefits of alternative treatment options over the remaining lifetime of patients. The health economic analysis suggests that capecitabine is expected to produce greater health gains at a lower cost than 5-FU/LV. Oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/LV is estimated to cost pounds 2970 per additional QALY gained when compared to 5-FU/LV alone. Future research should attempt to elucidate uncertainties concerning the optimal roles of capecitabine and/or oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting in order to achieve the maximum level of clinical benefit.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), and capecitabine monotherapy (within their licensed indications), as adjuvant therapies in the treatment of patients with Stage III (Dukes' C) colon cancer after complete surgical resection of the primary tumour, as compared with adjuvant chemotherapy with an established fluorouracil-containing regimen. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic bibliographic databases were searched from inception to January 2005. Searches were supplemented by hand searching relevant articles, sponsor and other submissions of evidence to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence and conference proceedings. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis (where appropriate) of clinical efficacy evidence and a cost-effectiveness review and economic modelling were carried out. Marginal costs, life years gained and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to generate information on the likelihood that each of the interventions was optimal. RESULTS: Three randomised active-controlled trials, of varying methodological quality, were included in the review. The MOSAIC trial and NSABP C-07 study considered the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant treatment (albeit administered in different 5-FU/LV regimens) and the X-ACT study compared oral capecitabine with bolus 5-FU/LV alone. A review of the available evidence indicated that in patients with Stage III colon cancer, oxaliplatin in combination with an infusional de Gramont schedule of 5-FU/LV (FOLFOX4) was more effective in preventing and delaying disease recurrence than infusional 5-FU/LV alone (de Gramont regimen). Serious adverse events and treatment discontinuations due to toxicity were more evident with oxaliplatin-based regimens (FOLFOX4 and FLOX regimen) than infusional or bolus 5-FU/LV alone (de Gramont and Roswell Park regimen). Oral capecitabine was at least equivalent in disease-free survival to the bolus Mayo Clinic 5-FU/LV regimen for patients with resected Stage III colon cancer. Although, the safety and tolerability profile of capecitabine was superior to that of the Mayo Clinic 5-FU/LV regimen, it has not been evaluated in comparison with other less toxic 5-FU/LV regimens currently in common use in the UK. Based on the assumptions and survival analysis methods used, the cost-effectiveness analysis using economic modelling estimated that capecitabine was a dominating strategy and resulted in a cost-saving of approximately pound 3320 per patient in comparison with the Mayo Clinic 5-FU/LV regimen, while also providing an additional 0.98 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a 50-year model time horizon. Oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/LV (FOLFOX4 regimen) is estimated to cost an additional pound 2970 per QALY gained when compared with the de Gramont 5-FU/LV regimen and demonstrated superior survival outcomes with marginal costs. The uncertainty analysis suggests that both interventions have a high probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of both pound 20,000 and pound 30,000. An indirect comparison of the FOLFOX4 and Mayo Clinic 5-FU/LV regimens suggests that the use of FOLFOX4 in place of the Mayo Clinic 5-FU/LV regimen would cost an additional pound 5777 per QALY gained. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is estimated to be approximately pound 13,000 per QALY gained from treatment with FOLFOX4 compared with capecitabine. However, if the Mayo Clinic and the de Gramont 5-FU/LV regimens are assumed to be equivalent in terms of effectiveness, the ICER of FOLFOX4 in comparison with capecitabine may be greater than pound 30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that both capecitabine and FOLFOX4 are clinically effective and cost-effective in comparison with 5-FU/LV regimens (Mayo Clinic and de Gramont schedules). Further research is suggested into the effectiveness, tolerability, patient acceptability and costs of different oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine schedules in the adjuvant setting; the effects of treatment duration on efficacy; adverse events; resource data collection strategies and reporting of summary statistics; subgroups benefiting most from adjuvant chemotherapy; and methods for estimating mean survival.