Prucalopride for the treatment of women with chronic constipation in whom standard laxative regimens have failed to provide adequate relief.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prucalopride for the treatment of women with chronic constipation in whom standard laxative regimens have failed to provide adequate relief. The ERG report is based on the manufacturer's submission (MS) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as part of the single technology appraisal process. In the submission, quality-of-life data [Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) and Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaires] from trials of prucalopride were extrapolated to EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) data and used to inform effectiveness in an economic model. Response rates to prucalopride were derived from observed response rates in trials, defined as the proportion of patients achieving an average of three or more spontaneous complete bowel movements over the 4- or 12-week trial periods. Adult (18-64 years) and elderly (≥ 65 years) patients were considered separately in the model. Cost-effectiveness was determined from estimated improvements in EQ-5D and anticipated response rates, adjusted for baseline severity of chronic constipation. The ERG considered that the patients participating in these trials were not representative of those in the licensed indication. They were not all refractory to laxatives, and baseline EQ-5D scores showed a large spread in quality of life, with many patients experiencing little baseline dissatisfaction. The mapping of quality-of-life data from trials (PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM data) to EQ-5D was unclear and invalidated. The assumption of the long-term effectiveness and safety of prucalopride to 1 year was considered unjustified. There was no justification or sources given for coefficients used to predict effectiveness in the economic model, and no costs other than the cost of prucalopride were incorporated into the model. Owing to the many areas of uncertainty, particularly the effectiveness of prucalopride in the licensed patient group and its long-term effectiveness and safety, it was considered that the MS provided no evidence for whether prucalopride is effective or not in women with laxative-refractory chronic constipation. Further subgroup analysis of the actual patient group of interest may have better guided decision-making. However, long-term efficacy data, with validated estimates of quality of life incorporated in a well-founded model, would be important for an evidence-based judgement to be made.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory condition that typically causes a symmetrical chronic arthritis. Timely use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an essential aspect of disease management, but many patients may not respond even when conventional agents are used optimally. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), rituximab (RTX) and abatacept (ABT) when used in patients with RA who have tried conventional agents and have failed to improve after trying a first tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of primary studies was undertaken. Databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE up to July 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers assessed titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy, obtained the full text of relevant papers and screened them against inclusion criteria. STUDY APPRAISAL: Data from included studies were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by discussion and consultation with a third reviewer if necessary. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included in the systematic review: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one comparative study, one controlled study and 28 uncontrolled studies. One RCT (REFLEX) demonstrated the effectiveness of RTX. At 6 months significantly more patients treated with RTX achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 [relative risk (RR) = 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08 to 3.91] and ACR70 (RR = 12.14, 95% CI 2.96 to 49.86) compared with those treated with the placebo. Differences between groups in favour of RTX were observed at 6 months for mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) (mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -1.74 to -1.26) and mean change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.20). One RCT (ATTAIN) demonstrated the effectiveness of ABT. At 6 months significantly more patients treated with ABT achieved ACR20 (RR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.77 to 3.69) and ACR70 (RR = 6.70, 95% CI 1.62 to 27.80) compared with those treated with placebo. Significant differences between groups in favour of ABT were observed at 6 months for mean change from baseline in DAS28 score (mean difference -1.27, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.93) and mean change from baseline in HAQ score (mean difference -0.34). Twenty-eight uncontrolled studies observed improvement of effectiveness compared with before switching, in patients who switched to ADA, ETN or IFX after discontinued previous TNF inhibitor(s). Four studies were included in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness. Independent economic evaluation undertaken by the assessment group showed that compared with DMARDs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £34,300 [per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for ADA, £38,800 for ETN, £36,200 for IFX, £21,200 for RTX and £38,600 for ABT. RTX dominates the TNF inhibitors and the ICER for ABT compared with RTX is over £100,000 (per QALY). LIMITATIONS: Paucity of evidence from RCTs for assessing the clinical effectiveness of TNF inhibitors and an absence of head-to-head trials comparing the five technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs suggests that RTX and ABT are more effective than supportive care. Data from observational studies suggest that the use of an alternative TNF inhibitor in patients who exhibit an inadequate response to a first TNF inhibitor may offer some benefit, but there remain uncertainties with regard to the magnitude of treatment effects and their cost-effectiveness. Future research should include head-to-head trials comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technologies against each other and emerging biologics. FUNDING: This study was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

A simple, and potentially low-cost method for measuring the prevalence of childhood obesity.

BACKGROUND: Recent official publications have highlighted obesity as one of the biggest threats to public health and the prevalence of obesity in children is widely believed to be rising rapidly. However, there are no data on the prevalence of childhood obesity at a local level. We have developed a simple low-cost method of gaining such data by working with local schools. METHOD: We designed our method on the observation that numeracy and data handling skills are often taught in schools by getting children to measure their height and weight. We recruited seven schools and offered them a numeracy lesson plan suitable for year 5 (aged 9-10) children together with healthcare staff to attend the lesson. As part of the lesson, each child's height and weight was measured and recorded anonymously. Parental consent was obtained on an 'opt out' basis. The method was evaluated by questionnaire. RESULTS: We gained data on body mass index for 252 children. In total, 20% of the children were overweight, and 7% obese. The brief questionnaire survey indicated that both teachers and school nurses were happy with the method and would repeat it. Weighing was carried out sensitively. CONCLUSION: Our findings were in line with national studies of the prevalence of childhood obesity. The method was simple, low-cost and acceptable to schools and school nurses. There seems no reason why this project cannot be used more widely across the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and beyond. We now propose to roll out the method across all primary schools in Birmingham.

Pharmacokinetics of FCE 22101 in man following different modes of administration.

Twelve healthy volunteers received single iv doses of either 500 and 1000 mg or 750 and 1500 mg of the sodium salt of FCE 22101; in addition, five of the volunteers received a further dose of 2000 mg. In the second part of the study, 11 of the volunteers received 1000 mg doses of FCE 22101 in a four-way randomized fashion by iv bolus (1000 mg, with and without probenecid), im injection (1000 mg plus lignocaine) and a continuous infusion (280 mg/h) to steady state. All doses were well tolerated by the volunteers with no serious side effects and no significant haematological or biochemical changes following drug administration. Plasma and urine concentrations of FCE 22101, and in the cross-over study also its open ring metabolites P1 and P2, were determined by HPLC. Good linearity was observed between the peak plasma levels or AUC and the dose given. Plasma concentrations were fitted to a two-compartment model and the mean pharmacokinetic parameters determined after iv bolus were: Cmax 117 mg/l, T1/2 beta 36 min, Vss 181, AUC 2179 mg/min/l with urinary recoveries of FCE 22101 37%, P1 36% and P2 6%. With probenecid the values were Cmax 116 mg/l, T1/2 beta 47 min, Vss 141, AUC 4540 mg/min/l and urinary recoveries of FCE 22101 20%, P1 40% and P2 7%. Following im injection the mean values were Cmax 15 mg/l, Tmax 30 min, T1/2abs 14 min, T1/2 beta 61 min, AUC 2117 mg/min/l and urinary recoveries of FCE 22101 33%, P1 37% and P2 6%. At steady state during continuous infusion, mean values were Css 12.7 mg/l, Vss 131 and T1/2 beta after steady state was 22 min. Although urinary recoveries varied widely between volunteers there was a tendency towards consistency of recovery within individual volunteers. We conclude that FCE 22101 is a well tolerated penem with pharmacokinetic properties broadly similar to those of other penem and carbapenem antibiotics.