The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are an important source of evidence in the assessment of health interventions. In these studies, cost and effectiveness outcomes are commonly measured at multiple time points, but some observations may be missing. Restricting the analysis to the participants with complete data can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. Methods, such as multiple imputation, have been recommended as they make better use of the data available and are valid under less restrictive Missing At Random (MAR) assumption. Linear mixed effects models (LMMs) offer a simple alternative to handle missing data under MAR without requiring imputations, and have not been very well explored in the CEA context. In this manuscript, we aim to familiarize readers with LMMs and demonstrate their implementation in CEA. We illustrate the approach on a randomized trial of antidepressants, and provide the implementation code in R and Stata. We hope that the more familiar statistical framework associated with LMMs, compared to other missing data approaches, will encourage their implementation and move practitioners away from inadequate methods.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adalimumab for the Treatment of Uveitis Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. METHODS: The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting.

Societal Preferences for Funding Orphan Drugs in the United Kingdom: An Application of Person Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether UK National Health Service (NHS) policies for orphan drugs, which permit funding of non-cost-effective treatments, reflect societal preferences. METHODS: We conducted person trade-off (PTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) among 3950 adults selected to be representative of the UK general population. Experimental design was informed by surveys of patients affected by rare diseases, their caregivers, health care staff, and policymakers. Societal preferences were estimated in relation to treating a common disease, increases in waiting lists, or filling of vacant NHS posts. Results of the DCE were applied to recently licensed orphan drugs. RESULTS: On the basis of equal cost, the majority of respondents to the PTO (54%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 50-59) chose to allocate funds equally between patients treated for rare diseases and those treated for common diseases, with 32% (95% CI 28-36) favoring treating rare diseases over treating common diseases (14%; 95% CI 11-17), which this reduced to 23% (95% CI 20-27) when rare disease treatments were 10 times more expensive. When framed differently, more respondents prioritized not increasing waiting list size (43%; 95% CI 39-48) than to treat rare disease patients (34%; 95% CI 30-38). DISCUSSION: The DCE indicated a greater preference for treating a common disease over a rare disease. Respondents agreed with five of 12 positive appraisal recommendations for orphan drugs, even if their list price was higher, but preferred the NHS not to fund the remainder. CONCLUSIONS: The general public does not value rarity as a sufficient reason to justify special consideration for additional NHS funding of orphan drugs. This has implications regarding the appropriateness of operating higher thresholds of cost-effectiveness.

Cost effectiveness analysis of HLA-B*58:01 genotyping prior to initiation of allopurinol for gout.

Objective: To determine whether prospective testing for HLA-B*58:01, as a strategy to prevent serious adverse reactions to allopurinol in patients with gout, is cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis for the association of HLA-B*58:01 with cutaneous and hypersensitivity adverse drug reactions informed a decision analytic and Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes associated with testing vs standard care (with febuxostat prescribed for patients who test positive). Scenario analyses assessed alternative treatment assumptions and patient populations. Results: The number of patients needed to test to prevent one case of adverse drug reaction was 11 286 (95% central range (CR): 2573, 53 594). Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were small, £103 (95% CR: £98, £106) and 0.0023 (95% CR: -0.0006, 0.0055), respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £44 954 per QALY gained. The probability of testing being cost-effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was 0.25. Reduced costs of testing or febuxostat resulted in an ICER below £30 000 per QALY gained. The ICER for patients with chronic renal insufficiency was £38 478 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Routine testing for HLA-B*58:01 in order to reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions in patients being prescribed allopurinol for gout is unlikely to be cost-effective in the UK; however testing is expected to become cost-effective with reductions in the cost of genotyping, and with the future availability of cheaper, generic febuxostat.

Renal transplant patients' preference for the supply and delivery of immunosuppressants in Wales: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing policy recommendations aimed at moving immunosuppressant prescribing for renal transplant patients from primary to secondary care may result in benefits of increased safety and reduced cost. However, there is little evidence of patients' preferences for receiving their immunosuppressant therapy from hospitals compared to community dispensing. The aim of this study was to elicit patient preferences for different service configurations focusing in particular on home delivery versus collection of medication from hospital. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 265 renal transplant patients in North Wales. Respondents were presented 18 pairwise choices, labelled as either home delivery or hospital collection, and described by the attributes: frequency of supply, waiting time (for delivery or collection) and method of ordering (provider contact, patient contact via phone, patient contact electronically). Data were analysed using a random-effects logit model and marginal rates of substitution calculated based on the waiting time attribute. RESULTS: A response rate of 63% was achieved, with 5332 usable observations from 150 respondents. Method of delivery (ß coefficient 1.21; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.38), frequency of supply (0.05; 0.03 to 0.08) waiting time (-0.00, -0.00 to -0.00), provider contact (desirable) (0.20; 0.12 to 0.27), patient contact by telephone (desirable) (0.09; 0.01 to 0.17) and patient contact electronically (undesirable) (-0.292; -0.37 to -0.21) were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Results indicate that patients are willing to increase waiting time by nearly 10 h to have a home delivery service. CONCLUSION: Patients indicate a clear preference for a home delivery service. They prefer providers to make contact when new immunosuppressant supplies are required and show preference against ordering medication electronically. A policy for secondary care prescribing and hospital collection of medicines does not align with this preference.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for HLA-A*31:01 prior to initiation of carbamazepine in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Carbamazepine causes severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions that may be predicted by the presence of the HLA-A*31:01 allele in northern European populations. There is uncertainty as to whether routine testing of patients with epilepsy is cost-effective. We conducted an economic evaluation of HLA-A*31:01 testing from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A short-term, decision analytic model was developed to estimate the outcomes and costs associated with a policy of routine testing (with lamotrigine prescribed for patients who test positive) versus the current standard of care, which is carbamazepine prescribed without testing. A Markov model was used to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime to account for differences in drug effectiveness and the long-term consequences of adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Testing reduced the expected rate of cutaneous adverse drug reactions from 780 to 700 per 10,000 patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for pharmacogenetic testing versus standard care was £12,808 per QALY gained. The probability of testing being cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 0.80, but the results were sensitive to estimated remission rates for alternative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). SIGNIFICANCE: Routine testing for HLA-A*31:01 in order to reduce the incidence of cutaneous adverse drug reactions in patients being prescribed carbamazepine for epilepsy is likely to represent a cost-effective use of health care resources.

Pharmacogenetic testing prior to carbamazepine treatment of epilepsy: patients' and physicians' preferences for testing and service delivery.

AIM: Pharmacogenetic studies have identified the presence of the HLA-A*31:01 allele as a predictor of cutaneous adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) to carbamazepine. This study aimed to ascertain the preferences of patients and clinicians to inform carbamazepine pharmacogenetic testing services. METHODS: Attributes of importance to people with epilepsy and neurologists were identified through interviews and from published sources. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in 82 people with epilepsy and 83 neurologists. Random-effects logit regression models were used to determine the importance of the attributes and direction of effect. RESULTS: In the patient DCE, all attributes (seizure remission, reduction in seizure frequency, memory problems, skin rash and rare, severe ADRs) were significant. The estimated utility of testing was greater, at 0.52 (95% CI 0.19, 1.00) than not testing at 0.33 (95% CI -0.07, 0.81). In the physician DCE, cost, inclusion in the British National Formulary, coverage, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) were significant. Marginal rates of substitution indicated that neurologists were willing to pay £5.87 for a 1 percentage point increase in NPV and £3.99 for a 1 percentage point increase in PPV. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of both patients' and clinicians' perspectives represents an important contribution to the understanding of preferences towards pharmacogenetic testing prior to initiating carbamazepine. Both groups identified different attributes but had generally consistent preferences. Patients' acceptance of a decrease in treatment benefit for a reduced chance of severe ADRs adds support for the implementation of HLA-A*31:01 testing in routine practice.

Predictors of self-reported adherence to antihypertensive medicines: a multinational, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to antihypertensive medicines limits their effectiveness, increases the risk of adverse health outcome, and is associated with significant health care costs. The multiple causes of nonadherence differ both within and between patients and are influenced by patients' care settings. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article was to identify determinants of patient nonadherence to antihypertensive medicines, drawing from psychosocial and economic models of behavior. METHODS: Outpatients with hypertension from Austria, Belgium, England, Germany, Greece, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, and Wales were recruited to a cross-sectional online survey. Nonadherence to medicines was assessed using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (primary outcome) and the Medication Adherence Rating Scale. Associations with adherence and nonadherence were tested for demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors. RESULTS: A total of 2595 patients completed the questionnaire. The percentage of patients classed as nonadherent ranged from 24% in The Netherlands to 70% in Hungary. Low age, low self-efficacy, and respondents' perceptions of their illness and cost-related barriers were associated with nonadherence measured on the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale across several countries. In multilevel, multivariate analysis, low self-efficacy (odds ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.77) and a high number of perceived barriers to taking medicines (odds ratio = 1.70; 95% confidence interval 1.38-2.09) were the main significant determinants of nonadherence. Country differences explained 11% of the variance in nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Among the variables measured, patients' adherence to antihypertensive medicines is influenced primarily by their self-efficacy, illness beliefs, and perceived barriers. These should be targets for interventions for improving adherence, as should an appreciation of differences among the countries in which they are being delivered.

Economic evaluation of a behavior-modifying intervention to enhance antiepileptic drug adherence.

Between 35% and 50% of patients with epilepsy are reported to be not fully adherent to their medication schedule. We aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drugs. Based on the findings of a systematic review, we identified an implementation intention intervention (specifying when, where, and how to act) which was tested in a trial that closely resembled current clinical management of patients with epilepsy and which measured adherence with an objective and least biased method. Using patient-level data, trial patients were matched with those recruited for the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs trial according to their clinical characteristics and adherence. Generalized linear models were used to adjust cost and utility in order to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK. The mean cost of the intervention group, £1340 (95% CI: £1132, £1688), was marginally lower than that of the control group representing standard care, £1352 (95% CI: £1132, £1727). Quality-adjusted life-year values in the intervention group were higher than those in the control group, i.e., 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.79) compared with 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.79), resulting in a cost saving of £12 (€15, US$19) and with the intervention being dominant. The probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY is 94%. Our analysis lends support to the cost-effectiveness of a self-directed, implementation intention intervention for improving adherence to antiepileptic drugs. However, as with any modeling dependent on limited data on efficacy, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the clinical effectiveness of the intervention which would require a substantive trial for a more definitive conclusion.

Investigating preferences for support with life after stroke: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence of service user preferences to guide the commissioning and improvement of services that support life after stroke. We report the first investigation of patients' and family carers' preferences for community services after stroke using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: Two workshops with patients and family carers (n = 8) explored stroke experiences, identifying attributes important in shaping views about service design, and piloted data collection strategies. Attributes were group versus individual support; service provider; additional support for social and leisure activities; and the total time required to access services. Patients and family carers were recruited six months post stroke-onset (mean 331 days) from four stroke services, and invited to participate in the DCE. Patients' general health (EQ5D) and functional dependence (Barthel Index) were also assessed. Of 474 eligible patients, 144 (30%) expressed an interest in the study, and 80 (56%) of these completed the survey questionnaire. 34 of 74 (46%) family carers recruited through patients completed the DCE. RESULTS: All four attributes were significant in shaping patients preferences for stroke support service delivery (p < 0.05), confirming the interpretation of workshop findings. Patients prefer help and support for emotional needs, communication problems and physical difficulties to be provided on an individual basis; and to be offered additional social and leisure activities that they are able to attend on their own. Patients would appear to prefer that voluntary organisations do not provide these services, although this may be linked to lack of experience of these services. Family carers would prefer help and support in their caring role on a one-to-one basis. Whilst health related quality of life is associated with preference for format of service, results were relatively consistent across sub-groups, with the exception of time since stroke, where social and leisure activities had a greater impact on preferences of established service users. CONCLUSIONS: The data provide unique insights into how preferences for community services that support life after stroke are shaped. This information can be used to inform both service re-design, and barriers to implementation that will need to be accounted for in policy shifts towards a more mixed economy of service provision.

Supporting People With Type 2 Diabetes in the Effective Use of Their Medicine Through Mobile Health Technology Integrated With Clinical Care to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk: Protocol for an Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a common lifelong condition that affects over 400 million people worldwide. The use of effective medications and active self-management can reduce the risk of serious complications. However, people often have concerns when starting new medications and face difficulties in taking their medications regularly. Support provided by brief messages delivered through mobile phone-based SMS text messages can be effective in some long-term conditions. We have identified promising behavior change techniques (BCTs) to promote medication adherence in this population via a systematic review and developed SMS text messages that target these BCTs. Feasibility work has shown that these messages have fidelity to intended BCTs, are acceptable to patients, and are successful in changing the intended determinants of medication adherence. We now plan to test this intervention on a larger scale in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial is to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for reducing cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes by comparing it with usual care. METHODS: The trial will be a 12-month, multicenter, individually randomized controlled trial in primary care and will recruit adults (aged ≥35 years) with type 2 diabetes in England. Consenting participants will be randomized to receive short SMS text messages intended to affect a change in medication adherence 3 to 4 times per week in addition to usual care. The aim is to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention when it is added to usual care. The primary clinical outcome will be a composite cardiovascular risk measure. Data including patient-reported measures will be collected at baseline, at 13 and 26 weeks, and at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. With 958 participants (479 in each group), the trial is powered at 92.5% to detect a 4-percentage point difference in cardiovascular risk. The analysis will follow a prespecified plan. A nested quantitative and qualitative process analysis will be used to examine the putative mechanisms of behavior change and wider contextual influences. A health economic analysis will be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: The trial has completed the recruitment phase and is in the follow-up phase. The publication of results is anticipated in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for people with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15952379; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15952379. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32918.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. 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. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The SANAD II trial was a clinical trial designed to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for adults and children aged > 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. There are two main epilepsy types: focal and generalised. In focal epilepsy, seizures start at a single place in the brain (a focus), whereas in generalised epilepsy seizures start in both sides of the brain at the same time. Anti-seizure medications are the main treatment. For people with newly diagnosed epilepsy, the first anti-seizure medication should control the seizures as quickly as possible while avoiding side effects. The first-choice treatments are lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) for focal epilepsy and valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) for generalised epilepsy (however, the latter should be avoided in women who could become pregnant). A number of newer anti-seizure medications have been approved for NHS use, but it is unclear whether or not they should be used as first-line treatments. The SANAD II trial focused on the new medicines levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 1510 people aged ≥ 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy: 990 with focal epilepsy and 520 with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. FINDINGS: FOCAL EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam or zonisamide were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting treatment with lamotrigine, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% of those starting levetiracetam and 45% of those starting zonisamide. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that neither levetiracetam nor zonisamide is value for money for the NHS when compared with lamotrigine. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. FINDINGS: GENERALISED AND UNCLASSIFIABLE EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting valproate, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 37% of participants starting valproate and 42% of participants starting levetiracetam. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that levetiracetam is not good value for money for the NHS when compared with valproate. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. Importantly, our results will inform treatment decisions for women, who may choose a less effective treatment that is safer in pregnancy.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II).

INTRODUCTION: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

Attitudes towards epilepsy in the UK population: Results from a 2018 national survey.

PURPOSE: To measure stigma resulting from negative attitudes toward epilepsy in the United Kingdom (UK) population. METHODS: An online survey of a stratified quota sample of UK adults in July 2018. The primary outcome measure was the 46-item Attitudes and Beliefs about Living with Epilepsy (ABLE) scale, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Items on sociodemographic characteristics, experience of epilepsy, and knowledge of epilepsy were also included. Mean scores were calculated for the ABLE and subscales: risk and safety concerns, personal fear and social avoidance, work and role expectations, and negative stereotypes. Hierarchical regressions tested the association between mean ABLE and subscale scores with sociodemographic and epilepsy related factors. RESULTS: 4000 responded, 3875 responses were included in the analysis. Mean ABLE score was 2.28 (95% CI: 2.26-2.29) (1=no stigma, 5=high stigma). Subscales: risk and safety concerns 3.22 (95% CI: 3.20-3.25), personal fear and social avoidance 2.13 (95% CI: 2.11-2.16), work and role expectations 2.07 (95% CI: 2.05-2.09), and negative stereotypes 1.67 (95% CI: 1.65-1.69). Mean knowledge score was 78% (95% CI: 76.15-77.02). CONCLUSION: Findings of the first UK national survey of attitudes and beliefs about living with epilepsy suggest relatively low stigma among the sampled population. The subscale with the least stigma was negative stereotypes. Risk and safety concerns were associated with highest stigma. Improving public knowledge about epilepsy has potential to reduce stigma, however this may also raise risk and safety concerns. The results from this project could inform future work to improve awareness and understanding of epilepsy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Panel Tests for Multiple Pharmacogenes Associated With Adverse Drug Reactions: An Evaluation Framework.

The cost-effectiveness of testing for multiple genes implicated in adverse drug reactions requires the simultaneous assessment of all actionable information, including future prescribing decisions based on incidental findings. We developed methodology for determining the value of pharmacogenetic panel tests, illustrated with a multigene panel, including HLA-A*31:01, HLA-B*15:02, HLA-B*57:01, HLA-B*58:01, HLA-B (158T), and HLA-DQB1 (126Q). If the findings for all alleles are acted upon, regardless of their individual cost-effectiveness, the HLA panel resulted in cost savings of £378 (US $491), and a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.0069. Based on a stratified analysis and compared with no testing, initial use of the panel was cost-effective in patients eligible for abacavir (HLA-B*57:01), carbamazepine (HLA-A*31:01), and clozapine (HLA-B (158T) and HLA-DQB1 (126Q)), but not for carbamazepine (HLA-B*15:02) or allopurinol (HLA-B*58:01). The methods presented allow for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of multiple-gene panels.

Patient-Focused Drug Development Methods for Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study Using a Discrete Choice Experiment for Antiepileptic Drugs.

Regulatory decisions may be enhanced by incorporating patient preferences for drug benefit and harms. This study demonstrates a method of weighting clinical evidence by patients' benefit-risk preferences. Preference weights, derived from discrete choice experiments, were applied to clinical trial data to estimate the expected utility of alternative drugs. In a case study, the rank ordering of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as indicated from clinical studies, was compared with ordering based on weighting clinical evidence by patients' preferences. A statistically significant change in rank ordering of AEDs was observed for women of childbearing potential who were prescribed monotherapy for generalized or unclassified epilepsy. Rank ordering inferred from trial data, valproate > topiramate > lamotrigine, was reversed. Modeling the expected utility of drugs might address the need to use more systematic, methodologically sound approaches to collect patient input that can further inform regulatory decision making.

Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate for refractory uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are at risk of uveitis. The role of adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Inc., Ludwigshafen, Germany) in the management of uveitis in children needs to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX alone, with regard to controlling disease activity in refractory uveitis associated with JIA. DESIGN: This was a randomised (applying a ratio of 2 : 1 in favour of adalimumab), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre parallel-group trial with an integrated economic evaluation. A central web-based system used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. A cost-utility analysis based on visual acuity was conducted and a 10-year extrapolation by Markov modelling was also carried out. SETTING: The setting was tertiary care centres throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 2-18 years inclusive, with persistently active JIA-associated uveitis (despite optimised MTX treatment for at least 12 weeks). INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a stable dose of MTX and either adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing < 30 kg or 40 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing ≥ 30 kg by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks based on body weight) or a placebo (0.8 ml as appropriate according to body weight by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks) for up to 18 months. A follow-up appointment was arranged at 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - time to treatment failure [multicomponent score as defined by set criteria based on the Standardisation of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria]. Economic outcome - incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in England and Personal Social Services providers. Full details of secondary outcomes are provided in the study protocol. RESULTS: A total of 90 participants were randomised (adalimumab, n = 60; placebo, n = 30). There were 14 (23%) treatment failures in the adalimumab group and 17 (57%) in the placebo group. The analysis of the data from the double-blind phase of the trial showed that the hazard risk (HR) of treatment failure was significantly reduced, by 75%, for participants in the adalimumab group (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.51; p < 0.0001 from log-rank test). The cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus MTX was £129,025 per QALY gained. Adalimumab-treated participants had a much higher incidence of adverse and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab in combination with MTX is safe and effective in the management of JIA-associated uveitis. However, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is < 1% at the £30,000-per-QALY threshold. FUTURE WORK: A clinical trial is required to define the most effective time to stop therapy. Prognostic biomarkers of early and complete response should also be identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10065623 and European Clinical Trials Database number 2010-021141-41. 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. 23, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also funded by Arthritis Research UK (grant reference number 19612). Two strengths of adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml and 40 mg/0.8 ml) and a matching placebo were manufactured by AbbVie Inc. (the Marketing Authorisation holder) and supplied in bulk to the contracted distributor (Sharp Clinical Services, Crickhowell, UK) for distribution to trial centres.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of the most common rheumatic diseases in children and young people, who are at risk of developing inflammation in an area of the eye called the uvea (called uveitis). The purpose of the study was to look at how effective the use of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is compared with using MTX alone to treat JIA-associated uveitis. A total of 90 children (aged 2­18 years) taking MTX with JIA-associated uveitis took part in the study. If the inflammation in a patient's eye or eyes was not getting better during the 18 months, the patient was told to stop taking the study drug. It was found that those patients who were taking placebo and MTX in the trial stopped taking the study drug sooner than those who were taking adalimumab and MTX. This means that adalimumab and MTX was better at treating uveitis than MTX alone. It was found that more patients taking adalimumab and MTX together either reduced or stopped taking topical steroids than the patients taking placebo and MTX. It was found that patients taking adalimumab and MTX together experienced more side effects than those taking placebo with MTX. However, these were expected based on what was already known about adalimumab's side effects. An economic evaluation was conducted to estimate whether or not adalimumab would represent value for money for the NHS for this condition. This included long-term effects based on information about patients' clarity of vision. The analysis showed that adalimumab may not be cost-effective, as the additional costs of treatment may not be justified by the benefits. The final results show that although adalimumab used in combination with MTX does help to treat patients with JIA and uveitis, it may not represent good value for the NHS.