Methods for Indirect Treatment Comparison: Results from a Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios. METHODS: Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available. CONCLUSION: ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future.

The Acceptance of Indirect Treatment Comparison Methods in Oncology by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when comparing treatment effectiveness, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies state a clear preference for such direct comparisons. When these are not available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is an alternative option. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance of ITC methods by HTA agencies across England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, using oncology cases for a homogeneous sample of HTA evaluations. METHODS: The study was conducted on the PrismAccess database in May 2021 to retrieve HTA evaluation reports for oncology treatments for solid tumors, in which an ITC was presented. The analysis was restricted to HTA evaluation reports published between April 2018 and April 2021 in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Identified HTA evaluation reports were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers. For each ITC presented, the methodology and its acceptance by the HTA agency were analyzed. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-three HTA evaluation reports were identified, of which 120 (22%) presented an ITC. This proportion was the highest in England (51%) and lowest in France (6%). The overall acceptance rate of ITC methods was 30%, with the highest in England (47%) and lowest in France (0%). Network meta-analysis (NMA; 23%) was the most commonly used ITC technique, with a 39% acceptance rate overall, followed by Bucher ITC (19%; 43% acceptance rate) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (13%; 33% acceptance rate). The most common criticisms of the ITC methods from HTA agencies related to data limitations (heterogeneity and lack of data; 48% and 43%, respectively) and the statistical methods used (41%). CONCLUSIONS: The generally low acceptance rate of ITC methods by HTA agencies in oncology suggests that, whilst in the absence of a direct comparison ITCs may provide relevant evidence, this evidence is not widely considered sufficient for the purpose of HTA evaluations. The perception of ITC methods for the purpose of HTA evaluations varies substantially between countries. There is a need for further clarity on the properties of ITC techniques and the assessment of their results as ITC methods continue to evolve quickly and further techniques may become available in the future.

Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare reimbursement recommendations by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors. METHODS: Public assessment reports published on NICE and HAS Web sites between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021, describing appraisals for public reimbursement for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors were searched and systematically reviewed. Biosimilars and generic drugs were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 119 public assessment reports published by NICE and 134 by HAS were identified, with 101 interventions assessed by both agencies. Of 101, 38 (38%) interventions received similar recommendations, 38 (38%) were recommended for different populations, and 25 (25%) were endorsed by one agency but rejected by the other. The main reason NICE would not recommend a drug was due to lack of cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS would primarily reject a drug on the grounds of insufficient clinical evidence. CONCLUSION: The major divergence between agencies is the key criterion used for reimbursement recommendations. NICE mainly considers cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS primarily focuses on the clinical value of interventions. This contributes to the variability in reimbursement recommendations and leads to differential access to oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors among patients in France, and England and Wales. HIGHLIGHTS: Both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) have established formal health technology assessment (HTA) processes and offer universal public health care coverage. However, both agencies diverge in the weight given to different elements of evidence during HTA evaluations. NICE uses cost-effectiveness as key criterion for recommendations on drug reimbursement, while HAS mostly limits its assessment to clinical value.For oncology new medicines indicated for treating solid tumors between 2015 and 2021, recommendations differed 62% of the time between NICE and HAS, primarily due to the distinct key decision-making criteria each HTA agency uses.For 4 interventions not endorsed by NICE, HAS saw these drugs as providing a substantial enhancement in clinical value over existing treatments, potentially providing an edge in price negotiations. Conversely, NICE deemed these drugs as not delivering adequate value for money in comparison with current therapies.A key difference between the 2 agencies is HAS's insistence on methodological rigor in efficacy results, compared with NICE's more flexible approach, considering descriptive efficacy results in cost-effectiveness modeling.

Cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib in unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (EncoBini) as compared to other targeted double combination therapies, namely dabrafenib with trametinib (DabraTrame) and vemurafenib with cobimetinib (VemuCobi), for the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma (MM) from the French payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed considering a lifetime horizon. The model structure simulated the clinical pathway of patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM. Clinical effectiveness and safety inputs were sourced from the COLUMBUS trial, a network meta-analysis and published literature. Costs, resource use, and the quality of life inputs were obtained from the literature and appropriate French sources. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, EncoBini was associated, on average, with reduced costs and increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs), dominating both targeted double combination therapies. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €90,000 per QALY, the probability of EncoBini being cost-effective against either comparator remained above 80%. The most influential model parameters were the hazard ratios for the overall survival of EncoBini vs DabraTrame and VemuCobi, the pre- and post-progression utility values, as well as treatment dosages and the relative dose intensity of all interventions. CONCLUSION: EncoBini is associated with reduced costs and increased QALYs, dominating other targeted double combination therapies (DabraTrame, VemuCobi) for patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM in France. EncoBini is a highly cost-effective intervention in MM.

Access to innovative drugs and the National Reimbursement Drug List in China: Changing dynamics and future trends in pricing and reimbursement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multiple reforms aimed at improving the Chinese population's health have been introduced in recent years, including several designed to improve access to innovative drugs. We sought to review current factors affecting access to innovative drugs in China and to anticipate future trends. METHODS: Targeted reviews of published literature and statistics on the Chinese healthcare system, medical insurance and reimbursement processes were conducted, as well as interviews with five Chinese experts involved in the reimbursement of innovative drugs. RESULTS: Drug reimbursement in China is becoming increasingly centralized due to the removal of provincial pathways, the establishment of the National Healthcare Security Administration and the implementation of the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), which is now the main route for drug reimbursement in China. There is also an increasing number of other channels via which patients may access innovative treatments, including various types of commercial insurance and special access. Health technology assessment (HTA) and health economic evidence are becoming pivotal elements of the NRDL decision-making process. Alongside the optimization of HTA decision making, innovative risk-sharing agreements are anticipated to be increasingly leveraged in the future to optimize access to highly specialized technologies and encourage innovation while safeguarding limited healthcare funds. CONCLUSIONS: Drug public reimbursement in China continues to align more closely with approaches widely used in Europe in terms of HTA, health economics and pricing. Centralization of decision-making processes for public reimbursement of innovative drugs allows consistency in assessment and access, which optimizes the improvement of the Chinese population's health.

Economic evaluation of encorafenib with cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system. DESIGN: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values. OUTCOME MEASURES: The effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was €69 823/QALY, €70 421/QALY and €72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of €90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.

Potential risks in using midodrine for persistent hypotension after cardiac surgery: a comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Persistent hypotension is a frequent complication after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Midodrine, an orally administered alpha agonist, could potentially reduce intravenous vasopressor use and accelerate ICU discharge of otherwise stable patients. The main objective of this study was to explore the clinical impacts of administering midodrine in patients with persistent hypotension after CPB. Our hypothesis was that midodrine would safely accelerate ICU discharge and be associated with more days free from ICU at 30 days. RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients having received midodrine while being on vasopressor support in the ICU within the first week after cardiac surgery with CPB, between January 2014 and January 2018 at the Montreal Heart Institute. A contemporary propensity score matched control group that included patients who presented similarly prolonged hypotension after cardiac surgery was formed. After matching, 74 pairs of patients (1:1) fulfilled inclusion criteria for the study and control groups. Midodrine use was associated with fewer days free from ICU (25.8 [23.7-27.1] vs 27.2 [25.9-28] days, p = 0.002), higher mortality (10 (13.5%) vs 1 (1.4%), p = 0.036) and longer ICU length of stay (99 [68-146] vs 68 [48-99] hours, p = 0.001). There was no difference in length of intravenous vasopressors (63 [40-87] vs 44 [26-66] hours, p = 0.052), rate of ICU readmission (6 (8.1%) vs 2 (2.7%), p = 0.092) and occurrence of severe kidney injury (11 (14.9%) vs 10 (13.5%) patients, p = 0.462) between groups. CONCLUSION: The administration of midodrine for sustained hypotension after cardiac surgery with CPB was associated with fewer days free from ICU and higher mortality. Routine prescription of midodrine to hasten ICU discharge after cardiac surgery should be used with caution until further prospective studies are conducted.

Health-related quality of life in alcohol dependence: Similar cross-cultural impact beyond specific drinking habits.

This study explores sociocultural differences in alcohol-related impact on quality of life between France and United Kingdom. We included 38 alcohol-dependent patients in France and United Kingdom in 10 focus groups. We used a text-mining approach. Three classes of each corpus regarded identical themes across the countries: (a) core impact on quality of life, (b) drinking habits, (c) sources of help. Core impact was similar between the two countries. Main differences were in drinking habits and referral to sources of help. Despite differences in drinking habits, the domains of life impacted by alcohol were non-country specific.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nalmefene Added to Psychosocial Support for the Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Alcohol-Dependent Patients With High/Very High Drinking Risk Levels: A Microsimulation Model.

OBJECTIVE: A microsimulation model was adapted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nalmefene combined with psychosocial support (NMF + PS) versus psychosocial support alone (PS). The economic impact of alcohol reduction using nalmefene treatment was not evaluated. METHOD: The model simulates patient-level alcohol consumption over a 5-year time horizon across different treatment cohorts. Study outcomes included probabilities of alcohol-attributable diseases and injuries as well as deaths from these events. The approach used nalmefene clinical trial data, a time horizon of 1 and 5 years, and a U.K. societal perspective. Extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with the PS strategy, NMF + PS was associated at Year 5 with a gain of 0.047 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an additional £503, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10,613 per QALY gained. When compared with the strategy without treatment, NMF + PS was associated with a gain of 0.228 QALYs and an additional £1,795, leading to an ICER of £1,758 per QALY gained. The NMF + PS strategy dominated both treatment strategies when considering the U.K. societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of NMF and PS was better than PS alone, considering a 5-year time horizon and a societal perspective.

Economic burden associated with alcohol dependence in a German primary care sample: a bottom-up study.

BACKGROUND: A considerable economic burden has been repeatedly associated with alcohol dependence (AD) - mostly calculated using aggregate data and alcohol-attributable fractions (top-down approach). However, this approach is limited by a number of assumptions, which are hard to test. Thus, cost estimates should ideally be validated with studies using individual data to estimate the same costs (bottom-up approach). However, bottom-up studies on the economic burden associated with AD are lacking. Our study aimed to fill this gap using the bottom-up approach to examine costs for AD, and also stratified the results by the following subgroups: sex, age, diagnostic approach and severity of AD, as relevant variations could be expected by these factors. SAMPLE: 1356 primary health care patients, representative for two German regions. AD was diagnosed by a standardized instrument and treating physicians. Individual costs were calculated by combining resource use and productivity data representing a period of six months prior to the time of interview, with unit costs derived from the literature or official statistics. The economic burden associated with AD was determined via excess costs by comparing utilization of various health care resources and impaired productivity between people with and without AD, controlling for relevant confounders. Additional analyses for several AD characteristics were performed. RESULTS: Mean costs among alcohol dependent patients were 50 % higher compared to the remaining patients, resulting in 1836 € excess costs per alcohol dependent patient in 6 months. More than half of these excess costs incurred through increased productivity loss among alcohol dependent patients. Treatment for alcohol problems represents only 6 % of these costs. The economic burden associated with AD incurred mainly among males and among 30 to 49 year old patients. Both diagnostic approaches were significantly related to the economic burden, while costs increased with alcohol use disorder severity but not with other AD severity indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms previous studies using top-down approaches to estimate the economic burden associated with AD. Further, we highlight the need for efforts aimed at preventing adverse outcomes for health and occupational situation associated with alcohol dependence based on factors associated with particularly high economic burden.

A Comparison of Markov and Discrete-Time Microsimulation Approaches: Simulating the Avoidance of Alcohol-Attributable Harmful Events from Reduction of Alcohol Consumption Through Treatment of Alcohol Dependence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: When modelling the pathophysiology of a disease, it is important to select a modelling approach that can adequately replicate its course. The objective of this paper was to compare the outcomes obtained by the Markov and discrete-time microsimulation modelling approaches using nalmefene clinical trial data. METHODS: Markov and microsimulation modelling approaches assessing alcohol dependence treatment with psychosocial support with or without nalmefene were compared in terms of the modelled evolution of patients' alcohol consumption and the resulting occurrence of alcohol-attributable harmful events over 1 year. RESULTS: Comparison of the proportion of the modelled population at different levels of alcohol consumption over time revealed systematic differences arising from the different modelling techniques: a lower number of patients reaching abstinence, a higher number of patients at higher drinking levels, and, overall, a smoother evolution of alcohol consumption in the microsimulation. Reasons are discussed in the paper. While the models produced similar occurrences of alcohol-attributable harmful events as a whole, distinct results for the individual events were observed, explained by the specific pathophysiology of occurrence of these events and how their implementation was adapted to fit the limitations of the compared modelling approaches; however, these differences were only statistically significant for one of the eight events. CONCLUSIONS: For a general public health or health economic assessment of alcohol use disorders, it is possible to achieve similar results with the compared approaches. To assess a patients' disease course, taking into consideration alcohol-attributable harmful events, the microsimulation approach may provide more precise results. However, further external validation of the models is needed and this additional precision may be outweighed by the greater computational burden of a microsimulation approach.

A Trial-Based Predictive Microsimulation Assessing the Public Health Benefits of Nalmefene and Psychosocial Support for the Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Alcohol Dependence.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence causes considerable harm to patients. Treatment with nalmefene, aiming to reduce consumption rather than maintain complete abstinence, has been licensed based on trials demonstrating a reduction in total alcohol consumption and heavy drinking days. Relating these trial outcomes to harmful events avoided is important to demonstrate the clinical relevance of nalmefene treatment. METHODS: A predictive microsimulation model was developed to compare nalmefene plus brief psychosocial intervention (BRENDA) versus placebo plus BRENDA for the treatment of patients with alcohol dependence and a high or very high drinking risk level based on three pooled clinical trials. The model simulated patterns and level of alcohol consumption, day-by-day, for 12 months, to estimate the occurrence of alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths; assessing the clinical relevance of reducing alcohol consumption with treatment. RESULTS: The microsimulation model predicted that, in a cohort of 100,000 patients, 971 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 904-1038) alcohol-attributable diseases and injuries and 133 (95 % CI 117-150) deaths would be avoided with nalmefene versus placebo. This level of benefit has been considered clinically relevant by the European Medicines Agency. CONCLUSIONS: This microsimulation model supports the clinical relevance of the reduction in alcohol consumption, and has estimated the extent of the public health benefit of treatment with nalmefene in patients with alcohol dependence and a high or very high drinking risk level.

The Cost Effectiveness of Nalmefene for Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Alcohol-Dependent Patients with High or Very High Drinking-Risk Levels from a UK Societal Perspective.

AIM: To evaluate costs and health outcomes of nalmefene plus psychosocial support, compared with psychosocial intervention alone, for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients, specifically focusing on societal costs related to productivity losses and crime. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to model costs and health outcomes of the treatments over 5 years. Analyses were conducted for nalmefene's licensed population: adults with both alcohol dependence and high or very high drinking-risk levels (DRLs) who do not require immediate detoxification and who have high or very high DRLs after initial assessment. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained as assessed from a UK societal perspective. Alcohol-attributable productivity loss, crime and health events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption were taken from published risk-relation studies. Health-related and societal costs were drawn from public data and the literature. Data on the treatment effect, as well as baseline characteristics of the modelled population and utilities, came from three pivotal phase 3 trials of nalmefene. RESULTS: Nalmefene plus psychosocial support was dominant compared with psychosocial intervention alone, resulting in QALYs gained and reduced societal costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that this conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to per-patient reduced costs of £3324 and £2483, due to reduced productivity losses and crime events, respectively. CONCLUSION: Nalmefene is cost effective from a UK societal perspective, resulting in greater QALY gains and lower costs compared with psychosocial support alone. Nalmefene demonstrates considerable public benefits by reducing alcohol-attributable productivity losses and crime events in adults with both alcohol dependence and high or very high DRLs who do not require immediate detoxification and who have high or very high DRLs after initial assessment.

The Cost-Effectiveness of the Integration of Nalmefene within the UK Healthcare System Treatment Pathway for Alcohol Dependence.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of integrating nalmefene within the treatment pathway for alcohol dependence recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK. METHODS: A Markov model, taking a UK NHS perspective, followed a cohort with alcohol dependence and high/very high drinking risk levels (HVHDRLs), who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue at HVHDRLs after initial assessment, for 5 years. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from treatment with nalmefene plus psychosocial support versus psychosocial support alone were modelled. The consequent incidence of alcohol-attributable harmful events and disease progression, with the possibility of requiring other options or recurrent treatment, were captured. RESULTS: Nalmefene plus psychosocial support dominated psychosocial support alone, with lower costs and increased QALYs after 5 years. Savings are driven by the higher response to nalmefene, and the subsequent lower cost accumulation for alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene represents a highly cost-effective treatment option in this population. The analysis shows that integrating nalmefene within the current UK clinical treatment pathway for alcohol dependence could reduce the economic burden on the NHS by limiting harmful events and disease progression.

Risk of All-Cause Mortality in Alcohol-Dependent Individuals: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence (AD) carries a high mortality burden, which may be mitigated by reduced alcohol consumption. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis investigating the risk of all-cause mortality in alcohol-dependent subjects. METHODS: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from database conception through 26th June 2014. Eligible studies reported all-cause mortality in both alcohol-dependent subjects and a comparator population of interest. Two individuals independently reviewed studies. Of 4540 records identified, 39 observational studies were included in meta-analyses. FINDINGS: We identified a significant increase in mortality for alcohol-dependent subjects compared with the general population (27 studies; relative risk [RR] = 3.45; 95% CI [2.96, 4.02]; p < 0.0001). The mortality increase was also significant compared to subjects qualifying for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or subjects without alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Alcohol-dependent subjects continuing to drink heavily had significantly greater mortality than alcohol-dependent subjects who reduced alcohol intake, even if abstainers were excluded (p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: AD was found to significantly increase an individual's risk of all-cause mortality. While abstinence in alcohol-dependent subjects led to greater mortality reduction than non-abstinence, this study suggests that alcohol-dependent subjects can significantly reduce their mortality risk by reducing alcohol consumption.

Modelling the consequences of a reduction in alcohol consumption among patients with alcohol dependence based on real-life observational data.

BACKGROUND: Most available pharmacotherapies for alcohol-dependent patients target abstinence; however, reduced alcohol consumption may be a more realistic goal. Using randomized clinical trial (RCT) data, a previous microsimulation model evaluated the clinical relevance of reduced consumption in terms of avoided alcohol-attributable events. Using real-life observational data, the current analysis aimed to adapt the model and confirm previous findings about the clinical relevance of reduced alcohol consumption. METHODS: Based on the prospective observational CONTROL study, evaluating daily alcohol consumption among alcohol-dependent patients, the model predicted the probability of drinking any alcohol during a given day. Predicted daily alcohol consumption was simulated in a hypothetical sample of 200,000 patients observed over a year. Individual total alcohol consumption (TAC) and number of heavy drinking days (HDD) were derived. Using published risk equations, probabilities of alcohol-attributable adverse health events (e.g., hospitalizations or death) corresponding to simulated consumptions were computed, and aggregated for categories of patients defined by HDDs and TAC (expressed per 100,000 patient-years). Sensitivity analyses tested model robustness. RESULTS: Shifting from >220 HDDs per year to 120-140 HDDs and shifting from 36,000-39,000 g TAC per year (120-130 g/day) to 15,000-18,000 g TAC per year (50-60 g/day) impacted substantially on the incidence of events (14,588 and 6148 events avoided per 100,000 patient-years, respectively). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborates the previous microsimulation modeling approach and, using real-life data, confirms RCT-based findings that reduced alcohol consumption is a relevant objective for consideration in alcohol dependence management to improve public health.