Cost-effectiveness of adrenocorticotropic hormone versus oral steroids for infantile spasms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and oral steroids as first-line treatment for infantile spasm resolution, we performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness study. METHODS: A decision analysis model was populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature and cost data from publicly available prices. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of clinical spasm resolution 14 days after treatment initiation. RESULTS: We included 21 studies with a total of 968 patients. The effectiveness of ACTH was not statistically significantly different from that of oral steroids (.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .60-.79 vs. .63, 95% CI = .56-.70; p = .28). Considering only the three available randomized trials with a total of 185 patients, the odds ratio of spasm resolution at 14 days with ACTH compared to high-dose prednisolone (4-8 mg/kg/day) was .92 (95% CI = .34-2.52, p = .87). Adjusting for potential publication bias, estimates became even more favorable to high-dose prednisolone. Using US prices, the more cost-effective treatment was high-dose prednisolone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $333 per case of spasms resolved, followed by ACTH, with an ICER of $1 432 200 per case of spasms resolved. These results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses and different assumptions. Prednisolone at 4-8 mg/kg/day was more cost-effective than ACTH under a wide range of assumptions. SIGNIFICANCE: For infantile spasm resolution 2 weeks after treatment initiation, current evidence does not support the preeminence of ACTH in terms of effectiveness and, especially, cost-effectiveness.

Dexamethasone or prednisolone for asthma exacerbations in children: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although a short course (ie, 3 to 5 days) of orally administered prednisolone is a common and widely accepted practice among clinicians for administering systemic corticosteroids in pediatric acute asthma, oral dexamethasone for 1 to 2 days is an attractive alternative to prednisolone due to its better palatability and compliance. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis regarding the use of dexamethasone compared to prednisolone is not sufficient, especially in lower- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of prednisolone vs oral dexamethasone for treating pediatric asthma exacerbations. METHODS: Using a decision-analysis model, we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of prednisolone vs oral dexamethasone for treating acute pediatric asthma. Effectiveness parameters were derived from a systematic review of the published literature. Data for costs were acquired from hospital accounts and from an official national database, the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from a Colombian third-party payer perspective. The principal outcome of the model was the avoidance of hospitalization. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that compared to dexamethasone, administering prednisolone was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US$93.97 vs US$104.91 mean cost per patient) without a significant difference in the probability of hospitalization avoided (.9108 vs .9108). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that in Colombia, a middle-income country, compared with oral dexamethasone, the use of prednisolone for treating acute pediatric asthma is cost-effective, yielding a similar probability of hospitalization at lesser overall costs.

Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. SETTING: Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. INTERVENTIONS: 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.

Long term tapering versus standard prednisolone treatment for first episode of childhood nephrotic syndrome: phase III randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether extending initial prednisolone treatment from eight to 16 weeks in children with idiopathic steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome improves the pattern of disease relapse. DESIGN: Double blind, parallel group, phase III randomised placebo controlled trial, including a cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: 125 UK National Health Service district general hospitals and tertiary paediatric nephrology centres. PARTICIPANTS: 237 children aged 1-14 years with a first episode of steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Children were randomised to receive an extended 16 week course of prednisolone (total dose 3150 mg/m2) or a standard eight week course of prednisolone (total dose 2240 mg/m2). The drug was supplied as 5 mg tablets alongside matching placebo so that participants in both groups received the same number of tablets at any time point in the study. A minimisation algorithm ensured balanced treatment allocation by ethnicity (South Asian, white, or other) and age (5 years or less, 6 years or more). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to first relapse over a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcome measures were relapse rate, incidence of frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome and steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome, use of alternative immunosuppressive treatment, rates of adverse events, behavioural change using the Achenbach child behaviour checklist, quality adjusted life years, and cost effectiveness from a healthcare perspective. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.17, log rank P=0.28) or in the incidence of frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (extended course 60/114 (53%) v standard course 55/109 (50%), P=0.75), steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome (48/114 (42%) v 48/109 (44%), P=0.77), or requirement for alternative immunosuppressive treatment (62/114 (54%) v 61/109 (56%), P=0.81). Total prednisolone dose after completion of the trial drug was 6674 mg for the extended course versus 5475 mg for the standard course (P=0.07). There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse event rates (extended course 19/114 (17%) v standard course 27/109 (25%), P=0.13) or adverse event rates, with the exception of behaviour, which was poorer in the standard course group. Scores on the Achenbach child behaviour checklist did not, however, differ. Extended course treatment was associated with a mean increase in generic quality of life (0.0162 additional quality adjusted life years, 95% confidence interval -0.005 to 0.037) and cost savings (difference -£1673 ($2160; €1930), 95% confidence interval -£3455 to £109). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes did not improve when the initial course of prednisolone treatment was extended from eight to 16 weeks in UK children with steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome. However, evidence was found of a short term health economic benefit through reduced resource use and increased quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16645249; EudraCT 2010-022489-29.

Oral Dexamethasone to Control Wheezing in Children at an Outpatient Clinic.

Asthma, a chronic childhood disease, has resulted in increased emergency department (ED) visits with high costs. Many asthma ED visits are nonemergent and could be treated in outpatient clinics. Literature has concluded that a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone has comparable outcomes to a 5-day course of prednisone in the ED and hospital setting. A retrospective chart review was performed on children requiring in-house treatment with a corticosteroid (dexamethasone n = 23, prednisone n = 40) for acute asthma exacerbations at an ambulatory medical home. The rates of hospital admissions, ED visits, and symptom follow-up were similar between the 2 groups ( P > .05). The cost for a course of dexamethasone was US$1.28 versus US$16.20 for prednisolone. The average cost for an asthma exacerbation office visit was US$79.89 compared with US$3113.28 for an ED visit. A 2-day course of oral dexamethasone appears to be a promising clinical and cost-effective treatment for acute asthma exacerbations at the primary care level.

Doxycycline Added to Prednisolone in Outpatient-Treated Acute Exacerbations of COPD: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with mild to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience exacerbations, which are also associated with increased healthcare costs. Despite limited evidence of antibiotics' benefits for exacerbations in outpatients, antibiotics are frequently prescribed. The aim of this study was to investigate whether doxycycline added to prednisolone is cost-effective compared to placebo plus prednisolone for the treatment of COPD acute exacerbations. METHODS: An economic evaluation from the societal perspective was performed alongside a 2-year randomised trial in 301 COPD patients in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The secondary outcome was cost per exacerbation prevented. Healthcare utilisation and loss of productivity were measured using retrospective questionnaires and clinical report forms. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations by chained equations. Bootstrapping was employed to estimate statistical uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness outcomes. A sensitivity analysis from the healthcare perspective was performed. RESULTS: On average, costs in the doxycycline group were €898 higher than in the placebo group [95% confidence interval (CI) - 2617 to 4409] for the 2 years of follow-up. QALY values were higher in the doxycycline group (0.03; 95% CI - 0.00 to 0.06), but patients in this group suffered 0.01 more exacerbations than patients in the placebo group (95% CI - 0.14 to 0.11). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability of doxycycline being cost-effective compared to placebo was 61% and 43% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €34,000 per QALY and per exacerbation avoided, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar results from the healthcare system perspective. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild to severe COPD treated for exacerbations in an outpatient setting, doxycycline added to prednisolone is not cost-effective compared to prednisolone plus placebo over a 2-year period.

Oral steroids for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children aged 2-8 years: the OSTRICH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Children with hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion (OME) are commonly managed through surgical intervention, hearing aids or watchful waiting. A safe, inexpensive, effective medical treatment would enhance treatment options. Small, poorly conducted trials have found a short-term benefit from oral steroids. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 7-day course of oral steroids in improving hearing at 5 weeks in children with persistent OME symptoms and current bilateral OME and hearing loss demonstrated by audiometry. DESIGN: Double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Ear, nose and throat outpatient or paediatric audiology and audiovestibular medicine clinics in Wales and England. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 2-8 years, with symptoms of hearing loss attributable to OME for at least 3 months, a diagnosis of bilateral OME made on the day of recruitment and audiometry-confirmed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: A 7-day course of oral soluble prednisolone, as a single daily dose of 20 mg for children aged 2-5 years or 30 mg for 6- to 8-year-olds, or matched placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptable hearing at 5 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprised acceptable hearing at 6 and 12 months, tympanometry, otoscopic findings, health-care consultations related to OME and other resource use, proportion of children who had ventilation tube (grommet) surgery at 6 and 12 months, adverse effects, symptoms, functional health status, health-related quality of life, short- and longer-term cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 389 children were randomised. Satisfactory hearing at 5 weeks was achieved by 39.9% and 32.8% in the oral steroid and placebo groups, respectively (absolute difference of 7.1%, 95% confidence interval -2.8% to 16.8%; number needed to treat = 14). This difference was not statistically significant. The secondary outcomes were consistent with the picture of a small or no benefit, and we found no subgroups that achieved a meaningful benefit from oral steroids. The economic analysis showed that treatment with oral steroids was more expensive and accrued fewer quality-adjusted life-years than treatment as usual. However, the differences were small and not statistically significant, and the sensitivity analyses demonstrated large variation in the results. CONCLUSIONS: OME in children with documented hearing loss and attributable symptoms for at least 3 months has a high rate of spontaneous resolution. Discussions about watchful waiting and other interventions will be enhanced by this evidence. The findings of this study suggest that any benefit from a short course of oral steroids for OME is likely to be small and of questionable clinical significance, and that the treatment is unlikely to be cost-effective and, therefore, their use cannot be recommended. FUTURE WORK: Studies exploring optimal approaches to sharing natural history data and enhancing shared decision-making are needed for this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49798431 and EudraCT 2012-005123-32. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Inequity of care provision and outcome disparity in autoimmune hepatitis in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Treatment paradigms in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) have remained largely unchanged for decades. Studies report ≤20% of patients have sub-optimal treatment response with most requiring long-term therapy. AIM: The United Kingdom Autoimmune Hepatitis (UK-AIH) study was established to evaluate current treatment practice and outcomes, determine the unmet needs of patients, and develop and implement improved treatment approaches. METHODS: The United Kingdom Autoimmune Hepatitis study is a cross-sectional cohort study examining secondary care management of prevalent adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Enrolment began in March 2014. Prevalent cases were defined as having been diagnosed and treated for >1 year. Demographic data, biochemistry, treatment history and response, and care location were collected. RESULTS: In total, 1249 patients were recruited; 635 were cared for in transplant units and 614 in non-transplant centres (81% female with median age at diagnosis 50 years). Overall, 29 treatment regimens were reported and biochemical remission rate was 59%. Remission rates were significantly higher in transplant compared to non-transplant centres (62 vs 55%, P = 0.028). 55% have ongoing corticosteroid exposure; 9% are receiving prednisolone monotherapy. Those aged ≤20 years at diagnosis were more likely to develop cirrhosis and place of care was associated with an aggressive disease phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant discrepancies in the care received by patients with autoimmune hepatitis in the UK. A high proportion remains on corticosteroids and there is significant treatment variability. Patients receiving care in transplant centres were more likely to achieve and maintain remission. Overall poor remission rates suggest that there are significant unmet therapeutic needs for patients with autoimmune hepatitis.

Budesonide with multi-matrix technology as second-line treatment for ulcerative colitis: evaluation of long-term cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands.

AIMS: Budesonide with multi-matrix technology (MMX) is an oral corticosteroid, shown to have high topical activity against ulcerative colitis (UC) while maintaining low systemic bioavailability with few adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX versus commonly used corticosteroids, in the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An eight-state Markov model with an 8 week cycle length captured remission, four distinct therapy stages, hospitalization, possible colectomy and mortality. Remission probability for budesonide MMX was based on the CORE-II study. Population characteristics were derived from the Dutch Inflammatory Bowel Disease South Limburg cohort (n = 598) and included patients with proctitis (39%), left-sided (42%) and extensive disease (19%). Comparators (topical budesonide foam and enema, oral budesonide and prednisolone) were selected based on current Dutch clinical practice. Treatment effects were evaluated by network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over a 5 year time horizon from a societal perspective, with costs, health-state and adverse event utilities derived from published sources. Outcomes were weighted by disease extent distribution and corresponding comparators. RESULTS: Budesonide MMX was associated with comparable quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain versus foam and oral formulations (+0.01 QALYs) in the total UC population, whilst being cost-saving (EUR 366 per patient). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated an 86.6% probability of budesonide MMX being dominant (cost-saving with QALY gain) versus these comparators. Exploratory analysis showed similar findings versus prednisolone. LIMITATIONS: Differing definitions of trial end-points and remission across trials meant indirect comparison was not ideal. However, in the absence of head-to-head clinical data, these comparisons are reasonable alternatives and currently offer the only comparison of second-line UC treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis, budesonide MMX was shown to be cost-effective versus comparators in the total UC population, for the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA. METHODS: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

Doxycycline compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with bullous pemphigoid: cost-effectiveness analysis of the BLISTER trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disorder associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Doxycycline and prednisolone to treat bullous pemphigoid were compared within a randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of doxycycline-initiated and prednisolone-initiated treatment for patients with BP. METHODS: Quality-of-life (EuroQoL-5D-3L) and resource data were collected as part of the BLISTER trial: a multicentre, parallel-group, investigator-blinded RCT. Within-trial analysis was performed using bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, informing a probabilistic assessment of incremental treatment cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, there was no robust difference in costs or QALYs per patient at 1 year comparing doxycycline- with prednisolone-initiated therapy [net cost £959, 95% confidence interval (CI) -£24 to £1941; net QALYs -0·024, 95% CI -0·088 to 0·041]. However, the findings varied by baseline blister severity. For patients with mild or moderate blistering (≤ 30 blisters) net costs and outcomes were similar. For patients with severe blistering (> 30 blisters) net costs were higher (£2558, 95% CI -£82 to £5198) and quality of life poorer (-0·090 QALYs, 95% CI -0·22 to 0·042) for patients starting on doxycycline. The probability that doxycycline would be cost-effective for those with severe pemphigoid was 1·5% at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently with the clinical findings of the BLISTER trial, patients with mild or moderate blistering should receive treatment guided by the safety and effectiveness of the drugs and patient preference - neither strategy is clearly a preferred use of National Health Service resources. However, prednisolone-initiated treatment may be more cost-effective for patients with severe blistering.

Ciclosporin compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with pyoderma gangrenosum: cost-effectiveness analysis of the STOP GAP trial.

BACKGROUND: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a painful, ulcerating skin disease with poor evidence for management. Prednisolone and ciclosporin are the most commonly used treatments, although not previously compared within a randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of ciclosporin and prednisolone-initiated treatment for patients with PG. METHODS: Quality of life (QoL, EuroQoL five dimensions three level questionnaire, EQ-5D-3L) and resource data were collected as part of the STOP GAP trial: a multicentre, parallel-group, observer-blind RCT. Within-trial analysis used bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, informing a probabilistic assessment of incremental treatment cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, when compared with prednisolone, ciclosporin was cost-effective due to a reduction in costs [net cost: -£1160; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2991 to 672] and improvement in QoL (net QALYs: 0·055; 95% CI 0·018-0·093). However, this finding appears driven by a minority of patients with large lesions (≥ 20 cm2 ) (net cost: -£5310; 95% CI -9729 to -891; net QALYs: 0·077; 95% CI 0·004-0·151). The incremental cost-effectiveness of ciclosporin for the majority of patients with smaller lesions was £23 374/QALY, although the estimate is imprecise: the probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY was 43%. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the clinical findings of the STOP GAP trial, patients with small lesions should receive treatment guided by the side-effect profiles of the drugs and patient preference - neither strategy is clearly a preferred use of National Health Service resources. However, ciclosporin-initiated treatment may be more cost-effective for patients with large lesions.

Oral steroids for the resolution of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children (OSTRICH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear affecting about 80 % of children by the age of 4 years. While OME usually resolves spontaneously, it can affect speech, behaviour and development. Children with persistent hearing loss associated with OME are usually offered hearing aids or insertion of ventilation tubes through the tympanic membrane. Oral steroids may be a safe and effective treatment for OME, which could be delivered in primary care. Treatment with oral steroids has the potential to benefit large numbers of children and reduce the burden of care on them and on health services. However, previous trials have either been too small with too short a follow-up period, or of too poor quality to give a definite answer. The aim of the Oral Steroids for the Resolution of Otitis Media with Effusion in Children (OSTRICH) trial is to determine if a short course of oral steroids improves the hearing of children with OME in the short and longer term. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 380 participants (children of 2 to 8 years of age) are recruited from Hospital Ear, Nose and Throat departments in Wales and England. A trained clinician seeks informed consent from parents of children with symptoms for at least 3 months that are attributable to OME and with confirmed bilateral hearing loss at study entry. Participants are randomised to a course of oral steroid or a matched placebo for 1 week. Outcomes include audiometry, tympanometry and otoscopy assessments; symptoms; adverse effects; functional health status; quality of life; resource use; and cost effectiveness. Participants are followed up at 5 weeks, and at 6 and 12 months after the day of randomisation. The primary outcome is audiometry-confirmed satisfactory hearing at 5 weeks. DISCUSSION: An important evidence gap exists regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of short courses of oral steroid treatment for OME. Identifying an effective, safe, nonsurgical intervention for OME in children for use in primary care would be of great benefit to children, their families and the NHS. ISRCTN: ISRCTN49798431 (Registered 7 December 2012).

A really wheezy way to save money.

Evaluating the cost-saving potential of switching prednisolone formulation in the treatment of childhood wheeze.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies using combination disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of combination DMARDs with short-term glucocorticoids in early active RA using data from the 2-year Combination of Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early RA (CARDERA) trial. METHODS: CARDERA enrolled 467 patients with active RA of <24-months duration. All patients received MTX; half received step-down prednisolone and half ciclosporin in a placebo-controlled factorial design. Differences in mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 24-months follow-up were estimated using patient-level data from a UK health service perspective and 2011-12 costs. RESULTS: Two-year costs for each treatment strategy showed primary care costs were negligible across all groups. Drug costs were lowest with MTX/ciclosporin and triple therapy. Hospital costs were lowest with MTX/prednisolone and triple therapy. Triple therapy was least costly and most effective; it dominated all other strategies. At positive values for a QALY in the typical UK range (£20 000-30 000) the probability that triple therapy was the most cost-effective strategy was 0.9. Results were robust to methods used to impute missing data. CONCLUSION: Intensive treatment of early RA with triple therapy (two DMARDs and short-term glucocorticoids) is both clinically effective and cost effective.

Short course daily prednisolone therapy during an upper respiratory tract infection in children with relapsing steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (PREDNOS 2): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Relapses of childhood steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) are treated with a 4- to 8-week course of high-dose oral prednisolone, which may be associated with significant adverse effects. There is a clear association between upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and relapse development. Previous studies in developing nations have suggested that introducing a 5- to 7-day course of daily prednisolone during an URTI may prevent a relapse developing and the need for a treatment course of high-dose prednisolone. The aim of PREDNOS 2 is to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-day course of daily prednisolone therapy during an URTI in reducing the development of a subsequent relapse in a developed nation. METHODS/DESIGN: The subjects will be 300 children with relapsing SSNS (≥2 relapses in preceding year), who will be randomised to receive either a 6-day course of daily prednisolone or no change to their current therapy (with the use of placebo to double blind) each time they develop an URTI over 12 months. A strict definition for URTI will be used. Subjects will be reviewed at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months to capture data regarding relapse history, ongoing therapy and adverse effect profile, including behavioural problems and quality of life. A formal health economic analysis will also be performed. The primary end point of the study will be the incidence of URTI-related relapse (3 days of Albustix +++) following the first infection during the 12-month follow-up period. DNA and RNA samples will be collected to identify a potential genetic cause for the disease. Subjects will be recruited from over 100 UK centres with the assistance of the Medicines for Children Research Network.PREDNOS 2 is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (11/129/261). DISCUSSION: We propose that PREDNOS 2 will be a pivotal study that will inform the future standard of care for children with SSNS. If it is possible to reduce the disease relapse rate effectively and safely, this will reduce the morbidity and cost associated with drug treatment, notwithstanding hospital admission and parental absence from employment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN10900733).

Patient demographics and health plan paid costs in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: We determined health plan paid costs and healthcare resource usage of patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). METHODS: CIDP patients from 9 U.S. commercial health plans with claims in 2011 were identified from the Accordant Health Services claims database. We examined demographics, prevalence of comorbidities, prescribed drugs, place of service, and mean annual health plan paid costs per patient. RESULTS: From 6.5 million covered lives, 73 (56% men; mean age 47) met study entry criteria. The most prescribed therapies were intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (26% of patients), gabapentin (26%), and prednisone (16%). The annual health plan paid cost was $56,953. Pharmacy cost was the major cost driver (57% of the total), and IVIg totaled 90% of the pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs for CIDP patients are substantial, with a large burden in pharmacy usage. Studies are needed to determine optimal long-term treatment strategies for CIDP, particularly related to IVIg.

Comparative cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To compare cost effectiveness models for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma, and explore the differences between the models' structure, parameters, assumptions and results. METHODS: Three cost effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma, were compared that had been developed to inform resource allocation in the UK for the chemotherapy regimens bortezomib, melphalan and prednisolone (BMP); and melphalan, prednisolone and thalidomide (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone (MP). The models used alternative approaches and assumptions to estimate the overall survival and progression-free survival for each of the interventions. Through the use of sensitivity analyses, the most influential parameters and assumptions of each of the models were identified. RESULTS: The models developed by the manufacturers gave conflicting results, with each manufacturer favouring their drug. The differences between the model results were determined by two parameters: the hazard ratio for overall survival for MPT vs. MP and the cost of bortezomib. CONCLUSIONS: Using models developed for assessing treatments for multiple myeloma we demonstrated that it was feasible to compare models, which then aided decision makers in making reimbursement decisions.

Efficacy, safety and cost analyses in ulcerative colitis patients undergoing granulocyte and monocyte adsorption or receiving prednisolone.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are treated with prednisolone (PSL), which causes adverse side effects. Extracorporeal granulocyte/monocyte adsorption (GMA) with an Adacolumn depletes elevated/activated myeloid lineage leucocytes as sources of inflammatory cytokines. We were interested to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the treatment cost for PSL and GMA. METHODS: Forty-one patients with active UC had achieved remission with GMA, at 1 or 2 sessions/week, up to 10 sessions (n=24) or with orally administered PSL (1mg/kg bodyweight, n=17). Clinical activity index (CAI) ≤4 was considered clinical remission. Following remission, patients received 5-aminosalicylic acid (2250-3000mg/day) or sulphasalazine (4000-6000mg/day) as maintenance therapy and were followed for 600 days. The total treatment cost was assessed based on 1€=150JPY. RESULTS: PSL was tapered after two weeks, and discontinued when a patient achieved remission. The average time to the disappearance of at least one major UC symptom (haematochezia, diarrhoea, or abdominal discomfort) was 15.3 days in the GMA group and 12.7 days in the PSL group, while time to remission was 27.9 days in the GMA group and 27.6 days in the PSL group, CAI 0.8 and 2.0, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier plots showed similar remission maintenance rates over the 600 days follow-up period. The average medical cost was 12739.4€/patient in the GMA group and 8751.3€ in the PSL group (P<0.05). In the GMA group, 5 transient adverse events were observed vs 10 steroid related adverse events in the PSL group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients, GMA has significant efficacy with no safety concern. The higher cost of GMA vs PSL should be compromised by good safety profile of this non-pharmacological treatment intervention.