Assessing the cost-effectiveness of type 1 diabetes interventions: the Sheffield type 1 diabetes policy model.

AIMS: To build a flexible and comprehensive long-term type 1 diabetes mellitus model incorporating the most up-to-date methodologies to allow a number of cost-effectiveness evaluations. METHODS: This paper describes the conceptual modelling, model implementation and model validation of the Sheffield type 1 diabetes policy model (version 1.0), developed through funding by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research as part of the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating research programme. The model is an individual patient-level simulation model of type 1 diabetes and it includes long-term microvascular (retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy) and macrovascular (myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization and angina) diabetes-related complications and acute adverse events (severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis). The occurrence of these diabetes-related complications in the model is linked to simulated individual patient-level risk factors, including HbA1c , age, duration of diabetes, lipids and blood pressure. Transition probabilities were modelled based on a combination of existing risk functions, published trials, epidemiological studies and individual-level data from the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating research programme. RESULTS: The model takes a lifetime perspective, estimating the impact of interventions on costs, clinical outcomes, survival and quality-adjusted life years. Validation of the model suggested that, for almost all diabetes-related complications predicted, event rates were within 10% of the normalized rates reported in the studies used to build the model. CONCLUSIONS: The model is highly flexible and has broad potential application to evaluate the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating research programme, other structured diabetes education programmes and other interventions for type 1 diabetes.

Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer management: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gene expression profiling (GEP) and expanded immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests aim to improve decision-making relating to adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nine GEP and expanded IHC tests compared with current prognostic tools in guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer in England and Wales. The nine tests are BluePrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), IHC4, MammaPrint, Mammostrat, NPI plus (NPI+), OncotypeDX, PAM50 and Randox Breast Cancer Array. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched included MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Databases were searched from January 2009 to May 2011 for the OncotypeDX and MammaPrint tests and from January 2002 to May 2011 for the other tests. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence on clinical effectiveness (analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility) and cost-effectiveness was conducted. An economic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment guided by four of the nine test (OncotypeDX, IHC4, MammaPrint and Mammostrat) compared with current clinical practice in England and Wales, using clinicopathological parameters, in women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+), lymph node-negative (LN-), human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer. RESULTS: The literature searches for clinical effectiveness identified 5993 citations, of which 32 full-text papers or abstracts (30 studies) satisfied the criteria for the effectiveness review. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence for OncotypeDX supported the prognostic capability of the test. There was some evidence on the impact of the test on decision-making and to support the case that OncotypeDX predicts chemotherapy benefit; however, few studies were UK based and limitations in relation to study design were identified. Evidence for MammaPrint demonstrated that the test score was a strong independent prognostic factor, but the evidence is non-UK based and is based on small sample sizes. Evidence on the Mammostrat test showed that the test was an independent prognostic tool for women with ER+, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer. The three studies appeared to be of reasonable quality and provided data from a UK setting (one study). One large study reported on clinical validity of the IHC4 test, with IHC4 score a highly significant predictor of distant recurrence. This study included data from a UK setting and appeared to be of reasonable quality. Evidence for the remaining five tests (PAM50, NPI+, BCI, BluePrint and Randox) was limited. The economic analysis suggests that treatment guided using IHC4 has the greatest potential to be cost-effective at a £20,000 threshold, given the low cost of the test; however, further research is needed on the analytical validity and clinical utility of IHC4, and the exact cost of the test needs to be confirmed. Current limitations in the evidence base produce significant uncertainty in the results. OncotypeDX has a more robust evidence base, but further evidence on its impact on decision-making in the UK and the predictive ability of the test in an ER+, LN-, HER- population receiving current drug regimens is needed. For MammaPrint and Mammostrat there were significant gaps in the available evidence and the estimates of cost-effectiveness produced were not considered to be robust by the External Assessment Group. LIMITATIONS: Methodological weaknesses in the clinical evidence base relate to heterogeneity of patient cohorts and issues arising from the retrospective nature of the evidence. Further evidence is required on the clinical utility of all of the tests and on UK-based populations. A key area of uncertainty relates to whether the tests provide prognostic or predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical evidence base for OncotypeDX is considered to be the most robust. The economic analysis suggested that treatment guided using IHC4 has the most potential to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000; however, the evidence base to support IHC4 needs significant further research. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2011:CRD42011001361, available from www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42011001361.

The cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for children with minor head injury.

AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for children with minor head injury and identify an optimal strategy. METHODS: A probabilistic decision analysis model was developed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued by each of six potential management strategies for minor head injury, including a theoretical 'zero option' strategy of discharging all patients home without investigation. The model took a lifetime horizon and the perspective of the National Health Service. RESULTS: The optimal strategy was based on the Children's Head injury Algorithm for the prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE) rule, although the costs and outcomes associated with each strategy were broadly similar. CONCLUSIONS: Liberal use of CT scanning based on a high sensitivity decision rule is not only effective but also cost saving, with the CHALICE rule being the optimal strategy, although there is some uncertainty in the results. Incremental changes in the costs and QALYs are very small when all selective CT strategies are compared. The estimated cost of caring for patients with brain injury worsened by delayed treatment is very high compared with the cost of CT scanning. This analysis suggests that all hospitals receiving children with minor head injury should have unrestricted access to CT scanning for use in conjunction with evidence-based guidelines.

Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) strategies have the potential to deliver specialised care and management to patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home telemonitoring (TM) or structured telephone support (STS) strategies compared with usual care for adult patients who have been recently discharged (within 28 days) from acute care after a recent exacerbation of HF. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) and research registers were searched to January 2012, supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles and contact with experts. The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational cohort studies with a contemporaneous control group that included the following RM interventions: (1) TM (including cardiovascular implanted monitoring devices) with medical support provided during office hours or 24/7; (2) STS programmes delivered by human-to-human contact (HH) or human-to-machine interface (HM). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (where appropriate) of the clinical evidence was carried out using standard methods. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different RM packages compared with usual care for recently discharged HF patients. TM 24/7 or using cardiovascular monitoring devices was not considered in the economic model because of the lack of data and/or unsuitability for the UK setting. Given the heterogeneity in the components of usual care and RM interventions, the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a set of costing scenarios designed to reflect the different configurations of usual care and RM in the UK. RESULTS: The literature searches identified 3060 citations. Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the 15 trials identified from the previous systematic reviews giving a total of 21 RCTs included in the systematic review. No trials of cardiovascular implanted monitoring devices or observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the studies varied widely and reporting was generally poor. Compared with usual care, RM was beneficial in reducing all-cause mortality for STS HH [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.55 to 1.08], TM during office hours (HR 0.76, 95% CrI 0.49 to 1.18) and TM 24/7 (HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.20 to 1.18); however, these results were statistically inconclusive. The results for TM 24/7 should be treated with caution because of the poor methodological quality of the only included study in this network. No favourable effect on mortality was observed with STS HM. Similar reductions were observed in all-cause hospitalisations for TM interventions, whereas STS interventions had no major effect. A sensitivity analysis, in which a study was excluded because it provided better-than-usual support to the control group, showed larger beneficial effects for most outcomes, particularly for TM during office hours. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, TM during office hours was the most cost-effective strategy with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £11,873 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with usual care, whereas STS HH had an ICER of £228,035 per QALY compared with TM during office hours. STS HM was dominated by usual care. Similar results were observed in scenario analyses performed using higher costs of usual care, higher costs of STS HH and lower costs of TM during office hours. LIMITATIONS: The RM interventions included in the review were heterogeneous in terms of monitored parameters and HF selection criteria and lacked detail in the components of the RM care packages and usual care (e.g. communication protocols, routine staff visits and resources used). As a result, the economic model developed scenarios for different RM classifications and their costs were estimated using bottom-up costing methods. Although the users can decide which of these scenarios is most representative of their setting, uncertainties still remain about the assumptions made in the estimation of these costs. In addition, the model assumed that the effectiveness of the interventions was constant over time, irrespective of the duration of deployment, and that the intervention was equally effective in different age/severity groups. CONCLUSION: Despite wide variation in usual care and RM strategies, cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that TM during office hours was an optimal strategy (in most costing scenarios). However, clarity was lacking among descriptions of the components of RM packages and usual care and there was a lack of robust estimation of costs. Further research is needed in these areas. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42011001368. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

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

The cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injury.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injury. METHODS: A mathematical model was constructed to evaluate the incremental costs and effectiveness (Quality Adjusted Life years Gained, QALYs) of ten diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injuries. Secondary analyses were undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission compared to discharge home and to explore the cost-effectiveness of strategies when no responsible adult was available to observe the patient after discharge. RESULTS: The apparent optimal strategy was based on the high and medium risk Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHRhm), although the costs and outcomes associated with each strategy were broadly similar. Hospital admission for patients with non-neurosurgical injury on CT dominated discharge home, whilst hospital admission for clinically normal patients with a normal CT was not cost-effective compared to discharge home with or without a responsible adult at £39 and £2.5 million per QALY, respectively. A selective CT strategy with discharge home if the CT scan was normal remained optimal compared to not investigating or CT scanning all patients when there was no responsible adult available to observe them after discharge. CONCLUSION: Our economic analysis confirms that the recent extension of access to CT scanning for minor head injury is appropriate. Liberal use of CT scanning based on a high sensitivity decision rule is not only effective but also cost-saving. The cost of CT scanning is very small compared to the estimated cost of caring for patients with brain injury worsened by delayed treatment. It is recommended therefore that all hospitals receiving patients with minor head injury should have unrestricted access to CT scanning for use in conjunction with evidence based guidelines. Provisionally the CCHRhm decision rule appears to be the best strategy although there is considerable uncertainty around the optimal decision rule. However, the CCHRhm rule appears to be the most widely validated and it therefore seems appropriate to conclude that the CCHRhm rule has the best evidence to support its use.

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

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

Bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. Evidence was available in the form of one phase III, multicentre, multinational, randomised, open-label study (NO16966 trial). This two-arm study was originally designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) compared with 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-4 in adult patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer who had not previously been treated. Following randomisation of 634 patients, the open-label study was amended to include a 2 × 2 factorial randomised (partially blinded for bevacizumab) phase III trial with the coprimary objective of demonstrating superiority of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. Measured outcomes included overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life. The manufacturer's primary pooled analysis of superiority (using the intention-to-treat population) showed that after a median follow-up of 28 months, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in adult patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer who were not previously treated [median progression-free survival 9.4 vs 7.7 months (absolute difference 1.7 months); hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.87; p = 0.0001; median overall survival 21.2 vs 18.9 months (absolute difference 2.3 months); HR 0.83, 97.5% CI 0.74 to 0.93; p = 0.0019]. The NO16966 trial was of reasonable methodological quality and demonstrated a significant improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival when bevacizumab was added to XELOX or FOLFOX. However, the size of the actual treatment effect of bevacizumab is uncertain. The ERG believed that the modelling structure employed was appropriate, but highlighted several key issues and areas of uncertainty. At the time of writing, NICE was yet to issue the guidance for this appraisal.

Health burden of co-morbid asthma and allergic rhinitis in West Indian children

Background: Co-morbid allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma has not been studied in Caribbean countries where there is a high prevalence of childhood asthma. Methods: Using the International Primary Care Airways Group (IPAG) guidelines to determine AR, care-givers of 393 (response rate=100%) children attending asthma clinics in selected public sector health facilities in Trinidad, West Indies, were interviewed. Results: Children (393) were between 2–17 years and included 239 (60.8%) boys and 154 (39.2%) girls. As many as 53.9% of children sampled (95% CI 45.9–55.8) suffered from AR. Children exposed to household smoking were nearly twice as likely to have AR (p<0.0041, OR=1.9, CI 1.22–2.88). Significantly (p<0.01) more asthmatics with AR (154, 58.6%) visited Accident and Emergency (A&E) in the past 12 months. The odds of visiting A&E at least once in the past 12 months for asthmatics with AR were 1.75 (95% CI 1.15–2.68). The average frequency of A&E visits was higher in children who also suffered from AR (1.75 vs 1.36, p<0.04). Age was negatively correlated (-0.21, p<0.005) with exacerbation frequency for asthmatics without AR suggesting A&E visits are independent of age in co-morbid disease. More children with AR (>60%) suffer day and night symptoms (p<0.001), and miss school (59.8%) (p<0.03) at least once a week (p<0.002) than asthmatics without AR (OR=1.5, 95% CI=1.03–2.30). Conclusions: AR is prevalent in 53.9% of Trinidadian children with asthma. The burden of co-morbid disease in asthmatic children is associated with increased likelihood of asthma-related A&E visits, day and night symptoms and absence from school

Health burden of co-morbid asthma and allergic rhinitis in West Indian children.

BACKGROUND: Co-morbid allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma has not been studied in Caribbean countries where there is a high prevalence of childhood asthma. METHODS: Using the International Primary Care Airways Group (IPAG) guidelines to determine AR, care-givers of 393 (response rate=100%) children attending asthma clinics in selected public sector health facilities in Trinidad, West Indies, were interviewed. RESULTS: Children (393) were between 2-17 years and included 239 (60.8%) boys and 154 (39.2%) girls. As many as 53.9% of children sampled (95% CI 45.9-55.8) suffered from AR. Children exposed to household smoking were nearly twice as likely to have AR (p<0.0041, OR=1.9, CI 1.22-2.88). Significantly (p<0.01) more asthmatics with AR (154, 58.6%) visited Accident and Emergency (A&E) in the past 12 months. The odds of visiting A&E at least once in the past 12 months for asthmatics with AR were 1.75 (95% CI 1.15-2.68). The average frequency of A&E visits was higher in children who also suffered from AR (1.75 vs 1.36, p<0.04). Age was negatively correlated (-0.21, p<0.005) with exacerbation frequency for asthmatics without AR suggesting A&E visits are independent of age in co-morbid disease. More children with AR (>60%) suffer day and night symptoms (p<0.001), and miss school (59.8%) (p<0.03) at least once a week (p<0.002) than asthmatics without AR (OR=1.5, 95% CI=1.03-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: AR is prevalent in 53.9% of Trinidadian children with asthma. The burden of co-morbid disease in asthmatic children is associated with increased likelihood of asthma-related A&E visits, day and night symptoms and absence from school.

Febuxostat for the treatment of hyperuricaemia in people with gout: a single technology appraisal.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of febuxostat for the management of hyperuricaemia in patients with gout based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's evidence came from two randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of febuxostat with allopurinol. The trials were of reasonable methodological quality and measured a clinically relevant range of outcomes. A pooled clinical efficacy analysis showed that a daily dose of 80 mg or 120 mg of febuxostat was significantly more effective than fixed-dose allopurinol (300/100 mg/day) at lowering serum uric acid (sUA) levels to therapeutic targets (< 6 mg/dl); however, a large percentage of febuxostat patients did not achieve the primary end point and the fixed-dose allopurinol regimen may have introduced bias. There were no differences between treatments in more clinically important outcomes such as gout flares and tophi resolution after 52 weeks of treatment. No subgroup analyses were conducted for patients with renal impairment, non-responders to allopurinol or patients with severe disease. Supplementary data from a 2-year open-label extension study were also provided, but were difficult to interpret and poorly reported. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments, although more febuxostat recipients discontinued treatment prematurely. A decision tree model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat. The scope was limited to the comparison of continual febuxostat treatment with continual allopurinol treatment. Switching between treatments or withdrawing treatment in patients whose sUA levels had not decreased was not permitted. The model predicted a cost-effectiveness of 16,324 pounds [95% confidence interval (CI) 6281 pounds to 239,928 pounds] per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for febuxostat compared with allopurinol after 2 years of treatment. The incremental cost per QALY was below 20,000 pounds in 63% of the simulations undertaken. Changes in the time horizon did not materially affect the results. The ERG believes that the modelling structure employed was not appropriate to estimate the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat within a treatment algorithm. In addition, there were concerns about the methodology used for collecting data on key model inputs. Given these reservations the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat could not be determined. The guidance issued by NICE in August 2008 as a result of the STA states that febuxostat is recommended as an option for the management of chronic hyperuricaemia in gout only for people who are intolerant of allopurinol or for whom allopurinol is contraindicated.

Early high-dose lipid-lowering therapy to avoid cardiac events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of high-dose statins (atorvastatin 80 mg/day, rosuvastatin 40 mg/day and simvastatin 80 mg/day) versus simvastatin 40 mg/day in individuals with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). DATA SOURCES: Eleven bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, DARE and NHS EED, were searched from inception to 2008. REVIEW METHODS: Data relating to study design, baseline patient characteristics, clinical or surrogate outcome, and adverse events were abstracted, and methodological quality was assessed according to standard methods. A synthesis of the available evidence was performed using a Bayesian mixed treatment meta-analysis using both direct and indirect evidence. An existing Markov model was modified to explore the costs and benefits associated with a lifetime of the differing treatment regimens. RESULTS: A total of 3345 titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness and 125 full papers retrieved and assessed in detail. Of these, 30 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review, describing 28 trials. The Bayesian mixed treatment meta-analysis demonstrated a clear dose-response relationship in terms of reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day achieving the greatest percentage reduction (56%) from baseline, followed by atorvastatin 80 mg/day (52%), simvastatin 80 mg/day (45%) and simvastatin 40 mg/day (37%). Although serious adverse events with statins are rare, their incidence is likely to be greater with higher doses. Several clinical scenarios were used to explore the effect of adherence on the cost-effectiveness of the treatment regimens. Using a threshold of 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and assuming that the benefits and adherence rates observed in the clinical trials are generalisable to a clinical setting and that individuals who do not tolerate the higher-dose statins are prescribed simvastatin 40 mg/day, then simvastatin 80 mg/day, atorvastatin 80 mg/day and rosuvastatin 40 mg/day would be considered cost-effective compared with simvastatin 40 mg/day in individuals with ACS. Simvastatin 80 mg/day is not well tolerated because of the high incidence rates of less severe adverse events such as myopathy (26-fold higher than rates in those receiving simvastatin 20 mg/day), which are likely to affect adherence levels in clinical practice. The reference case shows that rosuvastatin is the optimal treatment for individuals with a recent history of ACS using a threshold of 20,000 pounds per QALY. However, this is based on the assumption that the additional incremental reductions in LDL-c observed in patients treated with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day compared with atorvastatin will transfer into corresponding changes in relative risks of cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin 80 mg/day cannot be recommended because of the high incidence rates of adverse events. If the cost of atorvastatin decreases in line with that observed for simvastatin when the patent ends in 2011, atorvastatin 80 mg/day will be the most cost-effective treatment for all thresholds; if the cost reduces to 25% of the current value, atorvastatin 80 mg/day will be the most cost-effective treatment for thresholds between 5000 pounds and 30,000 pounds per QALY. Large long-term RCTs reporting effects in terms of clinical events are required to determine the optimum statin use for subgroups.

Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To study the evidence on the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy for the treatment of primary (heterozygous familial and non-familial) hypercholesterolaemia. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Eleven electronic bibliographic databases covering the biomedical, scientific and grey literature were searched from inception and supplemented by contact with experts in the field. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of RCTs, with a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks, which compared ezetimibe monotherapy (10 mg per day) with placebo. RESULTS: In the absence of data from clinical outcome trials, surrogate endpoints such as changes in lipid concentrations were used as indicators of clinical outcomes. A meta-analysis of eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (all 12 weeks) showed that ezetimibe monotherapy was associated with a statistically significant mean reduction in LDL cholesterol (from baseline to endpoint) of -18.58%, (95% CI: -19.67 to -17.48, P < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Significant (P < 0.00001) changes were also found in total cholesterol (-13.46%, 95% CI: -14.22 to -12.70), HDL cholesterol (3.00%, 95% CI: 2.06-3.94) and triglyceride levels (-8.06%, 95% CI: -10.92 to -5.20). Ezetimibe monotherapy appeared to be well tolerated with a safety profile similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis restricted to short-term trials in hypercholesterolaemia, significant potentially favourable changes in lipid and lipoprotein levels relative to baseline occurred with ezetimibe monotherapy. Further long-term studies with cardiovascular and other clinical outcome data are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe more fully.

Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe as a combination therapy or monotherapy for the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia in the UK. DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2006. Searches were supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles, sponsor and other submissions of evidence to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence and conference proceedings. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis (where appropriate) of the clinical efficacy evidence was undertaken following recommended guidelines. A Markov model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with ezetimibe treatment. RESULTS: No published clinical outcome trials (> 12 weeks) were identified. In the absence of clinical end-point data from trials, 13 (of which five were multi-arm) phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (of varying methodological quality) of short-term duration (12-48 weeks) with surrogate end-point data were included. For patients not adequately controlled with a statin alone, a meta-analysis of six studies showed that a fixed-dose combination of ezetimibe and statin treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and total cholesterol (Total-c) compared with statin alone (p < 0.00001). Four studies (not eligible for meta-analysis) that titrated (either forced or stepwise) the statin doses to LDL-c targets generally showed that the co-administration of ezetimibe and statin was significantly more effective in reducing plasma LDL-c concentrations than statin monotherapy (p < 0.05 for all studies). For patients where a statin is not considered appropriate, a meta-analysis of seven studies demonstrated that ezetimibe monotherapy significantly reduced LDL-c levels compared with placebo (p < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in LDL-c-lowering effects across different subgroups. Ezetimibe therapy (either in combination with a statin or monotherapy) appeared to be well tolerated compared to statin monotherapy or placebo, respectively. No ezetimibe studies reported data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was a wide range in the economic results depending on the treatment strategies evaluated. When comparing ezetimibe monotherapy with no treatment in individuals with baseline LDL-c values of 3.0-4.0 mmol/l, the results range from 21,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results for individuals with baseline LDL-c values over 5.0 mmol/l are below 30,000 pounds per QALY. When comparing the costs and benefits of adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin treatment compared with maintaining statin treatment at the current dose, the majority of results are above values generally considered to be cost-effective (range 19,000 pounds to 48,000 pounds per QALY). Based on the evidence available, when comparing the costs and benefits associated with adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin treatment compared with a switch to a more potent statin, the results are governed by the difference in the cost of the treatment regimens compared and results range from 1500 pounds to 116,000 pounds per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term RCT clinical evidence demonstrated that ezetimibe was effective in reducing LDL-c when administered as monotherapy or in combination with a statin. However, when used as a monotherapy, ezetimibe is less effective than statins in lowering LDL-c. Given the limitations in the effectiveness data, there is great uncertainty in the economic results. These suggest that ezetimibe could be a cost-effective treatment for individuals with high baseline LDL-c values, for patients with diabetes and for individuals with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Long-term clinical outcome studies are needed to allow more precise cost-effectiveness estimates to be calculated.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of statins for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with, or at risk of, coronary heart disease (CHD). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched between November 2003 and April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: A review was undertaken to identify and evaluate all literature relating to the clinical and cost effectiveness of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of CHD and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK. A Markov model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with a lifetime of statin treatment using a UK NHS perspective. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised studies were identified that compared a statin with placebo or with another statin, and reported clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis of the available data from the placebo-controlled studies indicates that, in patients with, or at risk of, CVD, statin therapy is associated with a reduced relative risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, CHD mortality and fatal myocardial infarction (MI), but not of fatal stroke. It is also associated with a reduced relative risk of morbidity [non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), unstable angina] and of coronary revascularisation. It is hardly possible, on the evidence available from the placebo-controlled trials, to differentiate between the clinical efficacy of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin. However, there is some evidence from direct comparisons between statins to suggest that atorvastatin may be more effective than pravastatin in patients with symptomatic CHD. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of statins in different subgroups. Statins are generally considered to be well tolerated and to have a good safety profile. This view is generally supported both by the evidence of the trials included in this review and by postmarketing surveillance data. Increases in creatine kinase and myopathy have been reported, but rhabdomyolysis and hepatotoxicity are rare. However, some patients may receive lipid-lowering therapy for as long as 50 years, and long-term safety over such a timespan remains unknown. In secondary prevention of CHD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) increase with age varying between pound 10,000 and pound 17,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for ages 45 and 85 respectively. Sensitivity analyses show these results are robust. In primary prevention of CHD there is substantial variation in ICERs by age and risk. The average ICERs weighted by risk range from pound 20,000 to pound 27,500 for men and from pound 21,000 to pound 57,000 for women. The results are sensitive to the cost of statins, discount rates and the modelling time frame. In the CVD analyses, which take into account the benefits of statins on reductions in stroke and TIA events, the average ICER weighted by risk level remains below pound 20,000 at CHD risk levels down to 0.5%. Limitations of the analyses include the requirement to extrapolate well beyond the timeframe of the trial period, and to extrapolate effectiveness results from higher risk primary prevention populations to the treatment of populations at much lower risk. Consequently, the results for the lower age bands and lower risks are subject to greater uncertainty and need to be treated with caution. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that statin therapy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of primary and secondary cardiovascular events. As the confidence intervals for each outcome in each prevention category overlap, it is not possible to differentiate, in terms of relative risk, between the effectiveness of statins in primary and secondary prevention. However, the absolute risk of CHD death/non-fatal MI is higher, and the number needed to treat to avoid such an event is consequently lower, in secondary than in primary prevention. The generalisability of these results is limited by the exclusion, in some studies, of patients who were hypersensitive to, intolerant of, or known to be unresponsive to, statins, or who were not adequately compliant with study medication during a placebo run-in phase. Consequently, the treatment effect may be reduced when statins are used in an unselected population. The results of the economic modelling show that statin therapy in secondary prevention is likely to be considered cost-effective. In primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness ratios are dependent on the level of CHD risk and age, but the results for the CVD analyses offer support for the more aggressive treatment recommendation issued by recent guidelines in UK. Evidence on clinical endpoints for rosuvastatin is awaited from on-going trials. The potential targeting of statins at low-risk populations is however associated with major uncertainties, particularly the likely uptake and long-term compliance to lifelong medication by asymptomatic younger patients. The targeting, assessment and monitoring of low-risk patients in primary care would be a major resource implication for the NHS. These areas require further research.

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

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

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

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

A cost-utility analysis of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term cost effectiveness of 1 year's treatment with clopidogrel on top of standard therapy (including aspirin; ASA) compared with standard therapy alone, in patients diagnosed with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the UK. DESIGN: Cost utility analysis using a Markov model, incorporating clinical data from CURE (a multicentre randomised controlled trial, involving 12,562 patients) and data from UK observational studies. SETTING: Health economic evaluation carried out from the perspective of the UK NHS. PATIENTS: A representative cohort of 1000 UK patients aged 66 years, diagnosed with non-ST-segment-elevation ACS. INTERVENTIONS: Either a combination of 75 mg/day clopidogrel (300 mg loading dose, within 24 h prior to hospital admission) and standard therapy (including ASA, 75-325 mg/day) for 1 year followed by standard therapy alone for their remaining lifetime, or standard therapy alone (including ASA, 75-325 mg/day) for life. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost effectiveness of the clopidogrel combination vs standard therapy alone is estimated as pounds 6991 per life-year gained and pounds 7365 per QALY gained. The probability that clopidogrel remains cost effective within the generally accepted pounds 30,000 per QALY threshold is more than 80%. The confidence interval around the relative risk for vascular death was identified as the main parameter affecting the estimated cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: One year's treatment with clopidogrel is a cost effective intervention compared with standard therapy that should be considered as a routine treatment for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACS.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry (MS)-based neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases covering biomedical, science, economic and grey literature, the reference lists of relevant articles and abstracts of conference proceedings and 18 health services research-related resources. REVIEW METHODS: This review is an update of two previous HTA reports of neonatal screening for IEM. These reports have been updated by a systematic review of published research (between 1995 and January 2002) on neonatal screening of inherited metabolic disorders using tandem MS. This was supplemented by a search for economic literature and the application of a modelling exercise to investigate the economics of using tandem MS within a neonatal screening programme in the UK. RESULTS: Evidence from the reviews of IEM found that the UK screening programme for phenylketonuria (PKU) was well established and there was universal agreement that neonatal screening for PKU was justified. Of the many other disorders that can be detected by tandem MS, the best candidate condition for a new screening programme was medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency. For many other IEM that can be detected by tandem MS, robust clinical evidence was limited. Cost-effectiveness analysis using economic modelling indicated that substituting the use of tandem MS for existing technologies for the screening of PKU alone could not be justified. However, results from the economic modelling indicate that the addition of screening for MCAD deficiency as part of a neonatal screening programme for PKU using tandem MS would be economically attractive. Using an operational range of 50,000-60,000 specimens per system per year, the mean incremental cost for PKU and MCAD deficiency screening combined using tandem MS from the model was -23,312 British pounds for each cohort of 100,000 neonates screened. This cost saving is associated with a mean incremental gain of 59 life-years. Additional economic modelling using the available evidence does not support including other inherited metabolic diseases within a neonatal screening programme at present. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence appears to support the introduction of tandem MS into a UK neonatal screening programme for PKU and MCAD deficiency combined. Tandem MS has the potential for simultaneous multi-disease screening using a single analytical technique. Although the marginal cost of extending the programme to include other conditions may be relatively small, the application of this new technology to PKU and MCAD deficiency screening does not imply the wholesale inclusion of all disorders detectable by tandem MS. It is suggested that the primary focus of further research should be on the long-term effectiveness of treatment strategies on adverse outcomes (disabilities and impairments) under conventional management and the potential impact of early diagnosis using tandem MS.