An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations.

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Developing a Thai national critical care allocation guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review and stakeholder consultation.

BACKGROUND: At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Thailand had almost depleted its critical care resources, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. This prompted the necessity to develop a national guideline for resource allocation. This paper describes the development process of a national guideline for critical resource allocation in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The guideline development process consisted of three steps: (1) rapid review of existing rationing guidelines and literature; (2) interviews of Thai clinicians experienced in caring for COVID-19 cases; and (3) multi-stakeholder consultations. At steps 1 and 2, data was synthesized and categorized using a thematic and content analysis approach, and this guided the formulation of the draft guideline. Within step 3, the draft Thai critical care allocation guideline was debated and finalized before entering the policy-decision stage. RESULTS: Three-order prioritization criteria consisting of (1) clinical prognosis using four tools (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, frailty assessment and cognitive impairment assessment), (2) number of life-years saved and (3) social usefulness were proposed by the research team based on literature reviews and interviews. At consultations, stakeholders rejected using life-years as a criterion due to potential age and gender discrimination, as well as social utility due to a concern it would foster public distrust, as this judgement can be arbitrary. It was agreed that the attending physician is required to be the decision-maker in the Thai medico-legal context, while a patient review committee would play an advisory role. Allocation decisions are to be documented for transparency, and no appealing mechanism is to be applied. This guideline will be triggered only when demand exceeds supply after the utmost efforts to mobilize surge capacity. Once implemented, it is applicable to all patients, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, requiring critical care resources prior to ICU admission and during ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline development process for the allocation of critical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand was informed by scientific evidence, medico-legal context, existing norms and societal values to reduce risk of public distrust given the sensitive nature of the issue and ethical dilemmas of the guiding principle, though it was conducted at record speed. Our lessons can provide an insight for the development of similar prioritization guidelines, especially in other low- and middle-income countries.

How can we evaluate the potential of innovative vaccine products and technologies in resource constrained settings? A total systems effectiveness (TSE) approach to decision-making.

Innovations in vaccine product attributes could play an important role in addressing coverage and equity (C&E) gaps, but there is currently a poor understanding of the full system impact and trade-offs associated with investing in such technologies, both from the perspective of national immunisation programmes (NIPs) and vaccine developers. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) was developed as an approach to evaluate vaccines with different product attributes from a systems perspective, in order to analyse and compare the value of innovative vaccine products in different settings. The TSE approach has been advanced over the years by various stakeholders including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Gavi, PATH, UNICEF and WHO. WHO further developed the TSE approach to incorporate the country perspective into immunisation decision-making, in order for countries to evaluate innovative products for introduction and product switch decisions, and for vaccine development stakeholders to conduct their assessments of product value in line with country preferences. This paper describes the original TSE approach, development of the tool and processes for NIPs to apply the WHO TSE approach, and results from piloting in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas. The WHO TSE framework emerged from this piloting effort. The WHO TSE approach has been welcomed by NIP and vaccine development stakeholders as a useful tool to evaluate trade-offs between different products. It was emphasised that the concept of "total systems effectiveness" is likely to be context-specific and that TSE is valuable in facilitating a deliberative process to articulate NIP priorities, for decisions around product choice, and for prioritising the development of future vaccine innovations.

Prioritizing critical-care resources in response to COVID-19: lessons from the development of Thailand's Triage protocol.

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician-patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country. METHODS: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data. RESULTS: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy.

'It takes two to tango': Bridging the gap between country need and vaccine product innovation.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing global commitment to universal health coverage, considerable vaccine coverage and uptake gaps persist in resource-constrained settings. One way of addressing the gaps is by ensuring product innovation is relevant and responsive to the needs of these contexts. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) framework has been developed to characterize preferred vaccine attributes from the perspective of country decision-makers to inform research and development (R&D) of products. A proof of concept pilot study took place in Thailand in 2018 to examine the feasibility and usefulness of the TSE approach using a rotavirus hypothetical test-case. METHODS: The excel-based model used multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare and evaluate five hypothetical rotavirus vaccine products. The model was populated with local data and products were ranked against decision criteria identified by Thai stakeholders. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify criteria that influenced vaccine ranking. Self-assessment forms were distributed to R&D stakeholders on the usability of the approach and were subsequently analysed. RESULTS: The model identified significant parameters that impacted on MCDA rankings. Self-assessment forms revealed that TSE was perceived as being able to encourage closer collaboration between country decision makers and vaccine developers. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study demonstrates that it is feasible to use an MCDA approach to elicit stakeholder preferences and determine influential parameters to help identify the preferred product characteristics for R&D from the perspective of country decision-makers. It found that TSE can help steer manufacturers to develop products that are better aligned with country need. Findings will guide further development of the TSE concept.

Interventions to promote oral nutritional behaviours in people living with neurodegenerative disorders of the motor system: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Weight loss is common in people with neurodegenerative diseases of the motor system (NDMS), such as Parkinson's disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, and is associated with reduced quality of life, functional ability and survival. This systematic review aims to identify interventions and intervention components (i.e. behaviour change techniques [BCTs] and modes of delivery [MoDs]) that are associated with increased effectiveness in promoting oral nutritional behaviours that help people with NDMS to achieve a high calorie diet. METHODS: Eight electronic databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from inception to May 2018. All interventions from included studies were coded for relevant BCTs and MoDs. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. Of these, eight studies reported interventions to assist with swallowing difficulties and six studies reported interventions targeting dietary content. Beneficial effects in managing swallowing difficulties were observed with video assisted swallowing therapy, lung volume recruitment and swallowing management clinics with outpatient support. In contrast, studies reporting effectiveness of chin down posture, use of thickened liquids and respiratory muscle training were inconclusive. Positive effects in interventions targeting dietary content included the use of food pyramid tools, individualised nutritional advice with nutritional interventions, electronic health applications, face-to-face dietary counselling and high fat, high carbohydrate and milk whey protein supplements. Individualised nutritional advice with weekly phone contact did not appear to be effective. Most frequently coded BCTs were 'instructions on how to perform the behaviour', 'self-monitoring' and 'behavioural practice/rehearsal'. Most commonly identified MoDs were 'human, face-to-face' and 'somatic therapy'. However, the robustness of these findings are low due to the small number of studies, small sample sizes and large between-study variability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence, these findings may help inform the development of more effective interventions to promote oral nutritional behaviours in people with NDMS. However, further research is needed to demonstrate which interventions, or intervention components, yield most benefit.

Rheumatoid arthritis treated with 6-months of first-line biologic or biosimilar therapy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of first-line biologic disease modifying drugs(boDMARDs), and their approved biosimilars (bsDMARDs), compared with conventional (csDMARD) treatment, in terms of ACR (American College of Rheumatology) and EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) responses. METHODS: Systematic literature search, on eight databases to January 2017, sought ACR and EULAR data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of boDMARDs / bsDMARDs (in combination with csDMARDs, or monotherapy). Two adult populations: methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with severe active RA; and csDMARD-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a random effects model with a probit link function for ordered categorical. RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs met the eligibility criteria. In the MTX-naïve severe active RA population, no biosimilar trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. MTX plus methylprednisolone (MP) was most likely to achieve the best ACR response. There was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to intensive (two or more) csDMARDs. In the csDMARD-experienced, moderate-to-severe RA population, the greatest effects for ACR responses were associated with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy, and combination therapy (plus MTX) with bsDMARD etanercept (ETN) SB4, boDMARD ETN and TCZ. These treatments also had the greatest effects on EULAR responses. No clear differences were found between the boDMARDs and their bsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naïve patients, there was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to two or more csDMARDs. In csDMARD-experienced patients, boDMARDs and bsDMARDs were comparable and all combination boDMARDs / bsDMARDs were superior to single csDMARD.

Assessing prognosis and prediction of treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease associated with reduced quality of life and substantial costs. It is unclear which tests and assessment tools allow the best assessment of prognosis in people with early RA and whether or not variables predict the response of patients to different drug treatments. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on the use of selected tests and assessment tools in patients with early RA (1) in the evaluation of a prognosis (review 1) and (2) as predictive markers of treatment response (review 2). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; searched to September 2016), registers, key websites, hand-searching of reference lists of included studies and key systematic reviews and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Review 1 - primary studies on the development, external validation and impact of clinical prediction models for selected outcomes in adult early RA patients. Review 2 - primary studies on the interaction between selected baseline covariates and treatment (conventional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) on salient outcomes in adult early RA patients. RESULTS: Review 1 - 22 model development studies and one combined model development/external validation study reporting 39 clinical prediction models were included. Five external validation studies evaluating eight clinical prediction models for radiographic joint damage were also included. c-statistics from internal validation ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for radiographic progression (different definitions, six studies) and 0.78 to 0.82 for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Predictive performance in external validations varied considerably. Three models [(1) Active controlled Study of Patients receiving Infliximab for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (ASPIRE) C-reactive protein (ASPIRE CRP), (2) ASPIRE erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASPIRE ESR) and (3) Behandelings Strategie (BeSt)] were externally validated using the same outcome definition in more than one population. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis suggested substantial uncertainty in the expected predictive performance of models in a new sample of patients. Review 2 - 12 studies were identified. Covariates examined included anti-citrullinated protein/peptide anti-body (ACPA) status, smoking status, erosions, rheumatoid factor status, C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen joint count (SJC), body mass index and vascularity of synovium on power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS). Outcomes examined included erosions/radiographic progression, disease activity, physical function and Disease Activity Score-28 remission. There was statistical evidence to suggest that ACPA status, SJC and PDUS status at baseline may be treatment effect modifiers, but not necessarily that they are prognostic of response for all treatments. Most of the results were subject to considerable uncertainty and were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis in review 1 was limited by the availability of only a small number of external validation studies. Studies rarely investigated the interaction between predictors and treatment. SUGGESTED RESEARCH PRIORITIES: Collaborative research (including the use of individual participant data) is needed to further develop and externally validate the clinical prediction models. The clinical prediction models should be validated with respect to individual treatments. Future assessments of treatment by covariate interactions should follow good statistical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Review 1 - uncertainty remains over the optimal prediction model(s) for use in clinical practice. Review 2 - in general, there was insufficient evidence that the effect of treatment depended on baseline characteristics. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042402. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Certolizumab Pegol for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis Following Inadequate Response to a TNF-α Inhibitor: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (UCB Pharma) of certolizumab pegol (CZP; Cimzia®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following inadequate response to a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for CZP was based predominantly on six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of CZP against placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of CZP against the comparators within the scope; therefore, the company performed a network meta-analysis (NMA). The company's NMA concluded that CZP had a similar efficacy to that of its comparators. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of CZP versus comparator biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service for three decision problems, each of which followed an inadequate response to a TNFi. These were (1) a comparison against rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate (MTX); (2) a comparison against bDMARDs when RTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event; and (3) a comparison against bDMARDs when MTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event. Results from the company's economic evaluation showed that CZP resulted in a similar number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) produced at similar or lower costs compared with comparator bDMARDs. The commercial-in-confidence patient access schemes for abatacept and tocilizumab could not be incorporated by the company, but were incorporated by the ERG in a confidential appendix for the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company estimated that the addition of CZP before RTX in a sequence for patients who could receive MTX produced more QALYs at an increased cost, with a cost per QALY of £33,222. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that did not change the conclusions reached based on the company's economic evaluation in relation to the comparison with bDMARDs. The ERG estimated that where CZP replaced RTX, CZP was dominated, as it produced fewer QALYs at an increased cost. The AC concluded that there was little difference in effectiveness between CZP and comparator bDMARDs and that equivalence among bDMARDs could be accepted. The AC consequently recommended CZP plus MTX for people for whom RTX is contraindicated or not tolerated and CZP monotherapy for people for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated. The AC concluded that CZP plus MTX could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources when RTX plus MTX is a treatment option.

The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether strategies of treatment with a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) are cost-effective in an English setting. Results are presented for those patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and those with severe RA. METHODS: An economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 7 bDMARD was developed. A systematic literature review and network metaanalysis was undertaken to establish relative clinical effectiveness. The results were used to populate the model, together with estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score following European League Against Rheumatism response; annual costs, and utility, per HAQ band; trajectory of HAQ for patients taking bDMARD; and trajectory of HAQ for patients using nonbiologic therapy (NBT). Results were presented as those associated with the strategy with the median cost-effectiveness. Supplementary analyses were undertaken assessing the change in cost-effectiveness when only patients with the most severe prognoses taking NBT were provided with bDMARD treatment. The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were compared with reported thresholds from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of £20,000 to £30,000 (US$24,700 to US$37,000). RESULTS: In the primary analyses, the cost per QALY of a bDMARD strategy was £41,600 for patients with severe RA and £51,100 for those with moderate to severe RA. Under the supplementary analyses, the cost per QALY fell to £25,300 for those with severe RA and to £28,500 for those with moderate to severe RA. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of bDMARD in RA in England is questionable and only meets current accepted levels in subsets of patients with the worst prognoses.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs. METHODS: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX. CONCLUSIONS: bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission). STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy (including a review of TA140 and TA262): clinical effectiveness systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. UC can have a considerable impact on patients' quality of life. The burden for the NHS is substantial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions, to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of all interventions and comparators (including medical and surgical options), to estimate the expected net budget impact of each intervention, and to identify key research priorities. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications, European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. The following databases were searched from inception to December 2013 for clinical effectiveness searches and from inception to January 2014 for cost-effectiveness searches for published and unpublished research evidence: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and NHS Economic Evaluation Database; ISI Web of Science, including Science Citation Index, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Bioscience Information Service Previews. The US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website were also searched, as were research registers, conference proceedings and key journals. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review [including network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of named interventions. The health economic analysis included a review of published economic evaluations and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. The trials suggest that adult patients receiving infliximab (IFX) [Remicade(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (MSD)], adalimumab (ADA) (Humira(®), AbbVie) or golimumab (GOL) (Simponi(®), MSD) were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving placebo (PBO). Hospitalisation data were limited, but suggested more favourable outcomes for ADA- and IFX-treated patients. Data on the use of surgical intervention were sparse, with a potential benefit for intervention-treated patients. Data were available from one trial to support the use of IFX in paediatric patients. Safety issues identified included serious infections, malignancies and administration site reactions. Based on the NMA, in the induction phase, all biological treatments were associated with statistically significant beneficial effects relative to PBO, with the greatest effect associated with IFX. For patients in response following induction, all treatments except ADA and GOL 100 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although these were not significant. The greatest effects at 8-32 and 32-52 weeks were associated with 100 mg of GOL and 5 mg/kg of IFX, respectively. For patients in remission following induction, all treatments except ADA at 8-32 weeks and GOL 50 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although only the effect of ADA at 32-52 weeks was significant. The greatest effects were associated with GOL (at 8-32 weeks) and ADA (at 32-52 weeks). The economic analysis suggests that colectomy is expected to dominate drug therapies, but for some patients, colectomy may not be considered acceptable. In circumstances in which only drug options are considered, IFX and GOL are expected to be ruled out because of dominance, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ADA versus conventional treatment is approximately £50,300 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: The health economic model is subject to several limitations: uncertainty associated with extrapolating trial data over a lifetime horizon, the model does not consider explicit sequential pathways of non-biological treatments, and evidence relating to complications of colectomy was identified through consideration of approaches used within previous models rather than a full systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients receiving IFX, ADA or GOL were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving PBO. Further data are required to conclusively demonstrate the effect of interventions on hospitalisation and surgical outcomes. The economic analysis indicates that colectomy is expected to dominate medical treatments for moderate to severe UC. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Biologic and Non-Biologic Options for the Treatment of Adults with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis after the Failure of Conventional Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. Medical management aims to induce and maintain remission and to avoid complications and the necessity for surgical intervention. Colectomy removes the source of inflammation but is associated with morbidity and mortality. Newer anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapies may improve medical outcomes, albeit at an increased cost. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the incremental cost effectiveness of infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab versus conventional therapy and surgery from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with health states defined according to whether the patient is alive or dead, current treatments received, history of colectomy and level of disease control. Transition probabilities were derived from network meta-analyses (NMAs) of trials of anti-TNF-α agents in the moderate-to-severe UC population. Health utilities, colectomy rates, surgical complications and resource use estimates were derived from literature. Unit costs were drawn from standard costing sources and literature and were valued at year 2013/2014 values. RESULTS: For patients in whom surgery is an option, colectomy is expected to dominate all medical treatment options. For patients in whom colectomy is not an option, infliximab and golimumab are expected to be ruled out due to dominance, whilst the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus conventional treatment is expected to be approximately £50,278 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the NMAs, the ICERs for anti-TNF-α therapy versus conventional treatment or surgery are expected to be at best, in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The cost effectiveness of withdrawing biologic therapy upon remission and re-treating relapse is unknown.

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from GEMINI 1, a Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of the induction and maintenance of clinical response and remission by vedolizumab (MLN0002) in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC with an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of conventional therapy or anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α. The clinical evidence showed that vedolizumab performed significantly better than placebo in both the induction and maintenance phases. In the post hoc subgroup analyses in patients with or without prior anti-TNF-α therapy, vedolizumab performed better then placebo (p value not reported). In addition, a greater improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in patients treated with vedolizumab, and the frequency and types of adverse events were similar in the vedolizumab and placebo groups, but the evidence was limited to short-term follow-up. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, which warrants caution in its interpretation--in particular, the post hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the maintenance phase of GEMINI 1. The company also presented a network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus other biologic therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe UC. However, the ERG considered that the results presented may have underestimated the uncertainty in treatment effects, since fixed-effects models were used, despite clear evidence of heterogeneity among the trials included in the network. Results from the company's economic evaluation (which included price reductions to reflect the proposed patient access scheme for vedolizumab) suggested that vedolizumab is the most effective option compared with surgery and conventional therapy in the following three populations: (1) a mixed intention-to-treat population, including patients who have previously received anti-TNF-α therapy and those who are anti-TNF-α naïve; (2) patients who are anti-TNF-α naïve only; and (3) patients who have previously failed anti-TNF-α therapy only. The ERG concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors in model implementation, omission of relevant comparators, deviations from the NICE reference case and questionable model assumptions. The ERG amended the company's model and demonstrated that vedolizumab is expected to be dominated by surgery in all three populations.

Risk Prediction Models for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Many lung cancer risk prediction models have been published but there has been no systematic review or comprehensive assessment of these models to assess how they could be used in screening. We performed a systematic review of lung cancer prediction models and identified 31 articles that related to 25 distinct models, of which 11 considered epidemiological factors only and did not require a clinical input. Another 11 articles focused on models that required a clinical assessment such as a blood test or scan, and 8 articles considered the 2-stage clonal expansion model. More of the epidemiological models had been externally validated than the more recent clinical assessment models. There was varying discrimination, the ability of a model to distinguish between cases and controls, with an area under the curve between 0.57 and 0.879 and calibration, the model's ability to assign an accurate probability to an individual. In our review we found that further validation studies need to be considered; especially for the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial 2012 Model Version (PLCOM2012) and Hoggart models, which recorded the best overall performance. Future studies will need to focus on prediction rules, such as optimal risk thresholds, for models for selective screening trials. Only 3 validation studies considered prediction rules when validating the models and overall the models were validated using varied tests in distinct populations, which made direct comparisons difficult. To improve this, multiple models need to be tested on the same data set with considerations for sensitivity, specificity, model accuracy, and positive predictive values at the optimal risk thresholds.

ITERATIVE SIFTING IN THE SELECTION OF RESEARCH EVIDENCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR REVIEWS AND OTHER DECISION PROBLEMS.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid scoping review was performed to support the development of a new clinical technology platform. An iterative sifting approach was adopted to address the challenges posed by the nature of the review question and the extremely large volume of search results to be sifted within the timescales of the review. METHODS: This study describes the iterative sifting approach applied in the scoping review and a preliminary validation of the methods applied. RESULTS: The searches performed for the rapid scoping review retrieved 27,198 records. This was the full set of records subjected to the staged, iterative sifting approach and the subsequent validation process. The iterative sifting approach involved the screening for relevance of 17,354 (i.e., 63.8 percent) of the 27,198 records. A list of fifty-three potential biomarker names was generated as a result of this iterative sifting method, of which nineteen were selected by clinical specialists for further scrutiny. The preliminary validation involved the exhaustive sifting of the remaining 9,844 previously unsifted records. The validation process identified sixteen additional potential biomarker names not identified by the iterative sifting process. The clinical specialists subsequently concluded that none were of further clinical interest. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes an approach to the screening of search records that can be successfully applied in appropriate review and decision problems to allow the prioritization of the most relevant search records and achieve time savings. Following further refinement and standardization, this iterative sifting method may have potential for further applications in reviews and other decision problems.