Cost effectiveness of personalized treatment in women with early breast cancer: the application of OncotypeDX and Adjuvant! Online to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in Austria.

A Breast Cancer Outcomes model was developed at the ONCOTYROL research center to evaluate personalized test-treatment strategies in Austria. The goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a new 21-gene assay (ODX) when used in conjunction with the Adjuvant! Online (AO) decision aid to support personalized decisions about use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer patients in Austria. We applied a validated discrete-event-simulation model to a hypothetical cohort of 50 years old women over a lifetime horizon. The test-treatment strategies of interest were defined using three-letter acronyms. The first (second, third) letter indicates whether patients with a low (intermediate, high) risk according to AO were tested using ODX (Y yes, N no). The main outcomes were life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and cost effectiveness. Robustness of the results was tested in sensitivity analyses. Results were compared to a Canadian analysis conducted by the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA). Five of eight strategies were dominated (i.e., more costly and less effective: NNY, NYN, YNN, YNY, YYN). The base-case analysis shows that YYY (ODX provided to all patients) is the most effective strategy and is cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,700 EUR per QALY gained. These results are sensitive to changes in the probabilities of distant recurrence, age and costs of chemotherapy. The results of the base-case analysis were comparable to the THETA results. Based on our analyses, using ODX in addition to AO is effective and cost effective in all women in Austria. The development of future genetic tests may require alternative or additional test-treatment strategies to be evaluated.

Sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular block after rapid sequence intubation: a systematic review and economic assessment.

Sugammadex 16 mg kg⁻¹ can be used for the immediate reversal of neuromuscular block 3 min after administration of rocuronium and could be used in place of succinylcholine for emergency intubation. We have systematically reviewed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness and made an economic assessment of sugammadex for immediate reversal. The economic assessment investigated whether sugammadex appears cost-effective under various assumptions about the value of any reduction in recovery time with sugammadex, the likelihood of a 'can't intubate, can't ventilate' (CICV) event, the age of the patient, and the length of the procedure. Three trials were included in the efficacy review. Sugammadex administered 3 or 5 min after rocuronium produced markedly faster recovery than placebo or spontaneous recovery from succinylcholine-induced block. No published economic evaluations were found. Our economic analyses showed that sugammadex appears more cost-effective, where the value of any reduction in recovery time is greater, where the reduction in mortality compared with succinylcholine is greater, and where the patient is younger, for lower probabilities of a CICV event and for long procedures which do not require profound block throughout. Because of the lack of evidence, the value of some parameters remains unknown, which makes it difficult to provide a definitive assessment of the cost-effectiveness of sugammadex in practice. The use of sugammadex in combination with high-dose rocuronium is efficacious. Further research is needed to clarify key parameters in the analysis and to allow a fuller economic assessment.

Sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for routine reversal of neuromuscular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

The cost-effectiveness of sugammadex for the routine reversal of muscle relaxation produced by rocuronium or vecuronium in UK practice is uncertain. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate and an economic assessment of sugammadex for the reversal of moderate or profound neuromuscular block (NMB) produced by rocuronium or vecuronium. The economic assessment aimed to establish the reduction in recovery time and the 'value of time saved' which would be necessary for sugammadex to be potentially cost-effective compared with existing practice. Three trials indicated that sugammadex 2 mg kg⁻¹ (4 mg kg⁻¹) produces more rapid recovery from moderate (profound) NMB than neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. The economic assessment indicated that if the reductions in recovery time associated with sugammadex in the trials are replicated in routine practice, sugammadex would be cost-effective if those reductions are achieved in the operating theatre (assumed value of staff time, £4.44 per minute), but not if they are achieved in the recovery room (assumed value of staff time, £0.33 per minute). However, there is considerable uncertainty in these results. Sugammadex has the potential to be cost-effective compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for the reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate or profound NMB, provided that the time savings observed in trials can be achieved and put to productive use in clinical practice. Further research is required to evaluate the effects of sugammadex on patient safety, predictability of recovery from NMB, patient outcomes, and efficient use of resources.

Sugammadex for the reversal of muscle relaxation in general anaesthesia: a systematic review and economic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex (Bridion) is a newly developed agent for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) induced by rocuronium or vecuronium. Sugammadex can reverse profound blockade and can be given for immediate reversal and its use would avoid the potentially serious adverse effects of the currently used agent, succinylcholine. Also, sugammadex can reverse NMB more quickly and predictably than existing agents. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sugammadex for the reversal of muscle relaxation after general anaesthesia in UK practice following routine or rapid induction of NMB. DATA SOURCES: Medical databases [including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), conference proceedings, internet sites and clinical trials registers] were searched to identify published and unpublished studies. The main searches were carried out in May 2008 and supplemented by current awareness updates up until November 2008. REVIEW METHODS: For the clinical effectiveness review, randomised controlled trials of sugammadex against placebo or an active comparator (neostigmine + glycopyrrolate) for the reversal of moderate or profound NMB and for immediate reversal (spontaneous recovery from succinylcholine-induced blockade) were included. The primary effectiveness outcome was speed of recovery from NMB, as measured by objective monitoring of neuromuscular function. For the cost-effectiveness review, a de novo economic assessment considered the routine induction of NMB and the rapid induction and/or reversal of NMB, and threshold analyses were carried out on a series of pairwise comparisons to establish how effective sugammadex needs to be to justify its cost. RESULTS: The review of clinical effectiveness included four randomised active-control trials of sugammadex, nine randomised placebo-controlled trials and five studies in special populations. A total of 2132 titles and abstracts and 265 full-text publications were screened. The included trials indicated that sugammadex produces more rapid recovery from moderate or profound NMB than placebo or neostigmine. Median time to recovery from moderate blockade was 1.3-1.7 minutes for rocuronium + sugammadex, 21-86 minutes for rocuronium + placebo and 17.6 minutes for rocuronium + neostigmine. In profound blockade, median time to recovery was 2.7 minutes for rocuronium + sugammadex, 30 to > 90 minutes for rocuronium + placebo, and 49 minutes for rocuronium + neostigmine. Results for vecuronium were similar. In addition, recovery from NMB was faster with rocuronium reversed by sugammadex 16 mg/kg after 3 minutes (immediate reversal) than with succinylcholine followed by spontaneous recovery (median time to primary outcome 4.2 versus 7.1 minutes). The evidence base for modelling cost-effectiveness is very limited. However, assuming that the reductions in recovery times seen in the trials can be achieved in routine practice and can be used productively, sugammadex [2 mg/kg (4 mg/kg)] is potentially cost-effective at its current list price for the routine reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate (profound) blockade, if each minute of recovery time saved can be valued at approximately 2.40 pounds (1.75 pounds) or more. This is more likely to be achieved if any reductions in recovery time are in the operating room (estimated value of 4.44 pounds per minute saved) rather than the recovery room (estimated value of 0.33 pounds per minute saved). The results were broadly similar for rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced blockade. For rapid reversal of NMB it appeared that any reduction in morbidity from adopting sugammadex is unlikely to result in significant cost savings. LIMITATIONS: The evidence base was not large and many of the published trials were dose-finding and safety studies with very small sample sizes. Also, some relevant outcomes, in particular patient experience/quality of life and resources/costs used, were either not investigated or not reported. In addition, it is likely that the patients included in the efficacy trials were relatively young and in good general health compared with the overall surgical population. Regarding the economic evaluation, there appears to be no evidence linking measures of clinical efficacy to patients' health-related quality of life and mortality risks. CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex may be a cost-effective option compared with neostigmine + glycopyrrolate for reversal of moderate NMB and also provides the facility to recover patients from profound blockade. Rocuronium + sugammadex could be considered as a replacement for succinylcholine for rapid induction (and reversal) of NMB, although this may not be a cost-effective option in some types of patient at current list prices for sugammadex. Considerable uncertainties remain about whether the full benefits of sugammadex can be realised in clinical practice.

Alitretinoin for the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin for the treatment of adults with severe chronic hand eczema refractory to topical steroid treatment in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Basilea Pharmaceuticals Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The clinical evidence came from a single placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of daily treatment with alitretinoin for 12-24 weeks, with follow-up for a further 24 weeks, in patients with severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) unresponsive to topical steroids. A statistically significantly greater proportion of patients using alitretinoin achieved the primary end point of clear or almost clear hands by week 24 than did those with placebo. Dose-dependent headache was the most commonly reported adverse event in patients treated with alitretinoin. Serious adverse events were rare, but alitretinoin was associated with increases in both total cholesterol and triglycerides, which has implications for risks of future cardiovascular events. The manufacturer submitted a de novo decision analytic model to estimate, over a time horizon of 3 years, the cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin versus the other relevant comparators identified by NICE. In response to the points of clarification put to it by the ERG regarding the initial submission, the manufacturer provided additional evidence and a revised decision analytic model with a 'placebo' arm. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported for alitretinoin were 8614 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) versus ciclosporin, -469 pounds per QALY versus psoralen + UVA (with alitretinoin dominant) and 10,612 pounds per QALY versus azathioprine. These ICERs decreased as the time horizon was extended in sensitivity analyses. In patients with hyperkeratotic CHE and in women of child-bearing potential, the ICER remained below 20,000. pounds When the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values used in the model were replaced with those derived from an alternative study, these ICERs increased significantly (to 22,312 pounds per QALY for alitretinoin versus azathioprine). In the revised model, alitretinoin was reported to have an ICER of 12,931 pounds per QALY gained versus supportive care (placebo). However, the model underestimates the costs of treatment associated with alitretinoin. The manufacturer assumed that patients receiving alitretinoin visited the dermatologist every 4 weeks and ceased treatment as soon as they responded to it. If, in practice, patients would receive treatment for longer than this, then the manufacturer's model will have significantly underestimated the costs to the NHS. Additional analyses undertaken by the ERG produced ICERs close to 30,000 pounds per QALY gained for alitretinoin versus supportive care. This was largely due to uncertainty surrounding the impact of alitretinoin on HRQoL. The placebo-controlled trials conducted to date have established that alitretinoin can be efficacious for the treatment of severe CHE refractory to topical steroids, but longer term follow-up of trials or the implementation of registries is required to better establish the longer term efficacy or safety of alitretinoin. NICE recommended the use of alitretinoin for patients with severe CHE and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of at least 15. Treatment was recommended to be stopped as soon as an adequate response was observed, or if CHE remained severe at 12 weeks, or if response was inadequate at 24 weeks.

Topotecan for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcomes measured were overall survival, progression-free survival, response rates, adverse effects of treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The manufacturer stated that topotecan plus cisplatin is the only combination regimen to date to have demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage compared to cisplatin monotherapy in the licensed population. The clinical evidence came from three clinical trials comparing topotecan plus cisplatin with cisplatin monotherapy (GOG-0179), topotecan plus cisplatin with paclitaxel plus cisplatin (GOG-0169), and four cisplatin-based combination therapies: topotecan plus cisplatin, paclitaxel plus cisplatin, gemcitabine plus cisplatin, and vinorelbine plus cisplatin (GOG-0204). Results from GOG-0179 showed greater median overall survival with topotecan plus cisplatin than with cisplatin monotherapy: 9.4 months versus 6.5 months. Similar results were also reported for median progression-free survival. Response rates also showed an advantage with topotecan plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin monotherapy. The response rates in patients receiving cisplatin monotherapy were very low, but the potential reasons for this were not discussed in the manufacturer's submission. Patients receiving topotecan plus cisplatin experienced a greater number of adverse events and the ERG was concerned with some of the assumptions related to HRQoL. In the base-case direct comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of topotecan plus cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy was 17,974 pounds per QALY in the main licensed population, 10,928 pounds per QALY in the cisplatin-naive population (including stage IVB patients) and 32,463 pounds per QALY in sustained cisplatin-free interval patients. In response to the point for clarification raised by the ERG, the manufacturer submitted a revised indirect comparison incorporating HRQoL and a longer time horizon. Where the hazard ratio derived from GOG-0169 was employed, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was dominated by topotecan plus cisplatin, but, where the hazard ratio from GOG-0204 was adopted, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was found to have an ICER of 13,260 pounds per QALY versus topotecan plus cisplatin. At present there is a paucity of evidence available on the clinical effects of topotecan plus cisplatin and the effects of palliative treatment in general for women with advanced and recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Further trials, or the implementation of registries, are required to establish the efficacy and safety of topotecan plus cisplatin. The guidance issued by NICE on 28 October 2009 as a result of the STA states that topotecan in combination with cisplatin is recommended as a treatment option for women with recurrent or stage IVB cervical cancer, only if they have not previously received cisplatin. Women who have previously received cisplatin and are currently being treated with topotecan in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of cervical cancer should have the option to continue therapy until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop.

Antiviral drugs for the treatment of influenza: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk' and otherwise healthy populations. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Pascal, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched from October 2001 to November 2007. A supplementary search was undertaken in June 2008 for information relating to drug resistance during the 2007-8 influenza season. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of influenza were undertaken. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials comparing antivirals with each other, placebo, or best symptomatic care were included in the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in patients presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). Primary outcomes were measures of symptom duration (median time to alleviation of symptoms and median time to return to normal activity). Incidence of complications, mortality, hospitalisations, antibiotic use (as a surrogate for complications) and adverse events was also assessed. In addition, an independent decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment from the perspective of the UK NHS. RESULTS: Amantadine was excluded at an early stage, owing to a lack of any new trials that met the inclusion criteria and the limitations of the existing evidence. The review therefore focused on the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) oseltamivir and zanamivir, both of which were found to be effective in reducing symptom duration (zanamavir by 0.5-1.0 days and oseltamivir by 0.5-1.5 days). However, the effect sizes were often small and unlikely to be clinically significant in many cases, particularly in healthy adults. For the at-risk subgroups, effect sizes for differences in symptom duration were generally larger, and potentially more clinically significant, than those seen in healthy adults (median duration of symptoms reduced by 1-2 days with zanamivir and 0.50-0.75 days with oseltamivir). However, there was greater uncertainty around these results, with estimates often failing to reach statistical significance. The most consistent data and strongest evidence related to antibiotic use, with both zanamivir and oseltamivir resulting in statistically significant reductions in antibiotic use. In general, the estimates from the cost-effectiveness model were more favourable in at-risk populations (including adults and children with comorbid conditions and the elderly) compared with otherwise healthy populations. Zanamivir was the optimal NI treatment in each of the at-risk populations considered, and oseltamivir was optimal for healthy populations (both adults and children). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness data for population subgroups used to inform the multiparameter evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness modelling were, in places, limited and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings of this review. Trials were often not designed to determine clinical effectiveness in population subgroups and hence, although the direction of effect was clear, estimates of differences in symptom duration tended to be subject to greater uncertainty in subgroups. Despite some concerns, the use of NIs in at-risk populations appeared to be a cost-effective approach for the treatment of influenza. Well-designed observational studies might also be considered to evaluate the clinical course of influenza in terms of complications, hospitalisation, mortality and quality of life, as well as the impact of NIs.

Methods to identify postnatal depression in primary care: an integrated evidence synthesis and value of information analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of methods to identify postnatal depression (PND) in primary care and to assess their validity, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, to model estimates of cost, to assess whether any method meets UK National Screening Committee (NSC) criteria and to identify areas for future research. DATA SOURCES: Searches of 20 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, DARE and CDSR), forward citation searching, personal communication with authors and searching of reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: A generalised linear mixed model approach to the bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken for the validation review with quality assessment using QUADAS. Within the acceptability review, a textual narrative approach was employed to synthesise qualitative and quantitative research evidence. For the clinical and cost-effectiveness reviews methods outlined by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration were followed. Probabilistic models were developed to estimate the costs associated with different identification strategies. RESULTS: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was the most frequently explored instrument across all of the reviews. In terms of test performance, postnatally the EPDS performed reasonably well: sensitivity ranged from 0.60 (specificity 0.97) to 0.96 (specificity 0.45) for major depression only; from 0.31 (specificity 0.99) to 0.91 (specificity 0.67) for major or minor depression; and from 0.38 (specificity 0.99) to 0.86 (specificity 0.87) for any psychiatric disorder. Evidence from the acceptability review indicated that, in the majority of studies, the EPDS was acceptable to women and health-care professionals when women were forewarned of the process, when the EPDS was administered in the home, with due attention to training, with empathetic skills of the health visitor and due consideration to positive responses to question 10 about self-harm. Suggestive evidence from the clinical effectiveness review indicated that use of the EPDS, compared with usual care, may lead to reductions in the number of women with depression scores above a threshold. In the absence of existing cost-effectiveness studies of PND identification strategies, a decision-analytic model was developed. The results of the base-case analysis suggested that use of formal identification strategies did not appear to represent value for money, based on conventional thresholds of cost-effectiveness used in the NHS. However, the scenarios considered demonstrated that this conclusion was primarily driven by the costs of false positives assumed in the base-case model. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the results of our evidence synthesis and decision modelling we revisited the examination of PND screening against five of the NSC criteria. We found that the accepted criteria for a PND screening programme were not currently met. The evidence suggested that there is a simple, safe, precise and validated screening test, in principle a suitable cut-off level could be defined and that the test is acceptable to the population. Evidence surrounding clinical and cost-effectiveness of methods to identify PND is lacking. Further research should aim to identify the optimal identification strategy, in terms of key psychometric properties for postnatal populations. In particular, research comparing the performance of the Whooley and help questions, the EPDS and a generic depression measure would be informative. It would also be informative to identify the natural history of PND over time and to identify the clinical effectiveness of the most valid and acceptable method to identify postnatal depression. Further research within a randomised controlled trial would provide robust estimates of the clinical effectiveness.