Longer-term effectiveness of systemic family therapy compared with treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: An extended follow up of pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition frequent. Evidence for effective interventions to reduce self-harm is limited. Long term follow-up of existing studies is rare. METHODS: Extended follow up, from 18 to at least 36-months, of the SHIFT trial: a pragmatic, multi-centre, individually-randomised, controlled trial involving young people (11-17) who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). SHIFT evaluated manualised family therapy (FT) versus treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months post-randomisation.We obtained ONS mortality data, adult mental health data, and further details of hospital attendance from routine Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data plus researcher follow-up. We assessed longer-term differences in outcome using multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards regression analysis, and assessed all-cause mortality and morbidity relating to hospital attendances for reasons other than self-harm. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 59793150. OUTCOMES: The original sample of 832 were randomised between April 2010 and December 2013. Extended follow-up continued until February 2017 for a median 55·4 months (range 0-82·5 months), providing post 18-month data for 804 (96·6%) participants, of whom 785 (94·4%) had a minimum of 36-months follow-up.There was no evidence of a between-group difference in the primary outcome during the extended follow-up period (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·03; 95% CI: 0·83, 1·28; p-value=0·78), consistent with our findings in the original trial with 18 months follow-up (HR 1·14, 95% CI 0·87, 1·49; p-value 0·33). There was a reduced rate of self-harm in older participants aged 15-17 (HR 0·7, 95% CI 0·56, 0·88), as compared with those aged 11-14; and significantly increased rates of self-harm in participants whose index episode combined self-injury and poisoning (HR 1·8, 95% CI 1·2, 2·7). Two deaths were reported during the extended follow up period. INTERPRETATION: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, trial FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing subsequent hospitalisation for self-harm over 18 months or 36 months. FUNDING: NIHR HTA Reference: 07/33/01.

Treatment of severe, chronic hand eczema: results from a UK-wide survey.

Treatment of severe hand eczema (HE) that is resistant to topical potent corticosteroid treatment is challenging. In 2013, we surveyed 194 UK dermatologists to obtain information about their usual treatment pathways to inform the choice of the comparator in a trial of alitretinoin in severe HE (ALPHA trial); the results indicated that the treatment approaches favoured by UK dermatologists differ. Psoralen combined with ultraviolet A (PUVA) and alitretinoin were identified as the most frequent first-line treatment options for hyperkeratotic HE, whereas oral corticosteroids were identified as the most frequent first-line treatment for vesicular HE, followed by PUVA and alitretinoin. In terms of potential adverse effects of long-term or repeated use, oral steroids and ciclosporin A were reported to cause most concern. There is uncertainty about which treatment gives the best short and long-term outcomes, because of a lack of definitive randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of different treatment pathways in severe HE.

Cost effectiveness of treatment with percutaneous Kirschner wires versus volar locking plate for adult patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius: analysis from the DRAFFT trial.

We present an economic evaluation using data from the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT) to compare the relative cost effectiveness of percutaneous Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation and volar locking-plate fixation for patients with dorsally-displaced fractures of the distal radius. The cost effectiveness analysis (cost per quality-adjusted life year; QALY) was derived from a multi-centre, two-arm, parallel group, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial which took place in 18 trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Data from 460 patients were available for analysis, which includes both a National Health Service cost perspective including costs of surgery, implants and healthcare resource use over a 12-month period after surgery, and a societal perspective, which includes the cost of time off work and the need for additional private care. There was only a small difference in QALYs gained for patients treated with locking-plate fixation over those treated with K-wires. At a mean additional cost of £714 (95% confidence interval 588 to 865) per patient, locking-plate fixation presented an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £89,322 per QALY within the first 12 months of treatment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the ICER of locking-plate fixation compared with K-wires. These were greater than £30,000. Compared with locking-plate fixation, K-wire fixation is a 'cost saving' intervention, with similar health benefits.

Understanding the impacts of care farms on health and well-being of disadvantaged populations: a protocol of the Evaluating Community Orders (ECO) pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Care farms, where all or part of the farm is used for therapeutic purposes, show much potential for improving the health and well-being of a range of disadvantaged groups. Studies to date have been qualitative or observational, with limited empirical evidence of the effectiveness of care farms in improving health and well-being. Understanding the underlying mechanisms that lead to improvements for different disadvantaged groups is a further gap in the evidence. Participants in this study are offenders serving community orders. Their low socioeconomic status and poor health outcomes relative to the general population exemplifies disadvantage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper describes the protocol of a study to understand the impacts of care farms and to pilot the design and tools for a study to assess cost-effectiveness of care farms in improving the quality of life of offenders. As a pilot study, no power calculation has been conducted. However, 150 offenders serving community sentences on care farms and 150 on other probation locations (eg, litter picking, painting) will be recruited over a 1-year period. Changes in quality of life, measured by Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure, health and reconvictions of offenders at care farms compared to other probation locations will be analysed to inform the sample size calculation for the follow on study. The feasibility of recruitment, retention, collecting cost data and modelling cost-effectiveness will also be assessed. The study will use qualitative methods to explore the experiences of offenders attending care farms and perceptions of probation and care farm staff on the processes and impacts of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be published and inform development of a natural experiment and will be disseminated to probation services, care farms and academics. University of Leeds Ethical Review Board approved: SoMREC/13/014. National Offender Management Service (NOMS) approved: 2013-257.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a web based decision aid to support parents' decisions about their child's Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a web based decision aid versus a leaflet versus, usual practice in reducing parents' decisional conflict for the first dose MMR vaccination decision. The, impact on MMR vaccine uptake was also explored. DESIGN: Three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fifty GP practices in the north of, England. PARTICIPANTS: 220 first time parents making a first dose MMR decision. INTERVENTIONS: Web, based MMR decision aid plus usual practice, MMR leaflet plus usual practice versus usual practice only, (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decisional conflict was the primary outcome and used as the, measure of parents' levels of informed decision-making. MMR uptake was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Decisional conflict decreased post-intervention for both intervention arms to a level where, parents could make an informed MMR decision (decision aid: effect estimate=1.09, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.82; information leaflet: effect estimate=-0.67, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.46). Trial arm was significantly, associated (p<0.001) with decisional conflict at post-intervention. Vaccination uptake was 100%, 91%, and 99% in the decision aid, leaflet and control arms, respectively (χ(2) (1, N=203)=8.69; p=0.017). Post-hoc tests revealed a statistically significant difference in uptake between the information leaflet, and the usual practice arms (p=0.04), and a near statistically significant difference between the, decision aid and leaflet arms (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Parents' decisional conflict was reduced in both, the decision aid and leaflet arms. The decision aid also prompted parents to act upon that decision and, vaccinate their child. Achieving both outcomes is fundamental to the integration of immunisation, decision aids within routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72521372.

Certolizumab pegol (CIMZIA®) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP) for adults with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that have not responded adequately to treatment with conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcome measures included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50 and 70 response rates and quality of life measures after 3 months and 6 months of treatment. The ERG examined the submission's search strategies and considered they appeared comprehensive and that it was unlikely that relevant studies would have been missed. Only English language studies were considered in the submission and non-English language studies relevant to the decision problem may possibly have been ignored. The ERG analysed the first submitted economic model so as to itemise in detail clarification points that were brought to the attention of the manufacturer. In response the manufacturer submitted a modified cost-effectiveness analysis. The ERG undertook further analysis of this second model and other additional submitted evidence. The clinical evidence was derived from two multicentre blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CZP + MTX to placebo + MTX (the RAPID 1 and RAPID 2 trials). RAPID 1 lasted 52 weeks with 982 patients and RAPID 2 24 weeks with 619 patients. Evidence for clinical effectiveness of CZP in mono-therapy came from the 24-week FAST4WARD trial with 220 patients that compared CZP (400 mg every 4 weeks) versus placebo. The three key RCTs demonstrated statistically significant superiority of CZP + MTX versus placebo + MTX and of CZP versus placebo with respect to a variety of outcomes including ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 measures and quality of life measures at 3 and 6 months. On the basis of results from the indirect comparison meta-analyses, the manufacturer suggested that CZP may be at least as effective as other 'biological' DMARD (bDMARD) comparators and, in a few ACR measures at 3 and 6 months, more effective. CZP is an effective therapy for adult RA patients whose disease has failed to respond adequately to cDMARDs including MTX or who are intolerant of MTX. The cost-effectiveness of CZP relative to other bDMARDs is unclear because the economic modelling undertaken may have ignored relevant effectiveness data and potential differences between trial populations, and so may have included effectiveness results that were biased in favour of CZP; underestimated uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of compared DMARDs; and ignored the potential influence of differences between bDMARDs with regard to adverse events and their related costs and health impacts. The NICE guidance issued in October 2009 states that: the Committee is minded not to recommend certolizumab pegol as a treatment option for people with RA; and the Committee recommends that NICE asks the manufacturer of CZP for more information on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP for the treatment of people with RA. On receipt of this information and details of a patient access scheme NICE issued final guidance recommending CZP, under certain criteria, as a treatment option for people with RA.

Imatinib as adjuvant treatment following resection of KIT-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumours.

This is a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant imatinib post resection of KIT-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) compared with resection only in patients at significant risk of relapse. The ERG report is 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. The bulk of the clinical evidence submitted was in the form of one randomised controlled trial (RCT), the Z9001 trial, funded by the manufacturer, which compared resection + adjuvant imatinib for 1 year to resection only. Results were immature, with median recurrence-free survival (RFS) not yet having been reached at the time of analysis. The trial did provide evidence of a delay in disease recurrence [1-year RFS rate of 98% in the imatinib arm vs 83% in the placebo arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.53, p < 0.0001)] but no evidence of an overall survival benefit. There was no long-term evidence around the rate of imatinib resistance over time with different treatment strategies (± adjuvant treatment). The relevant patient group for this appraisal is those at significant risk of relapse. These form a subgroup of the Z9001 trial, and all information regarding this group was designated 'Commercial-in-Confidence' (CIC). Median observation time for RFS was also CIC. The manufacturer constructed a Markov model comprising 10 health states designed to estimate costs and effects of treatment over a lifetime time horizon. The manufacturer's estimate of the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 22,937 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year (subsequently amended by the manufacturer to 23,601 pounds). While the structure of the model reasonably reflected the natural history of the disease, the ERG had numerous concerns regarding the selection of, and assumptions around, input parameters (utilities, monthly probabilities of recurrence and death). Furthermore, the model was set up in such a way that any delay in recurrence translated directly into a survival benefit, an assumption that has no evidence base. A further assumption not supported by evidence was that any treatment benefit gained in the first year is carried on for a further 2 years at the same rate. Appropriate probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the base case only, but not on scenario analyses, or choice of model used to estimate long-term survival data. The model was not amenable to changes in input values, thus limiting any additional analyses by the ERG to test assumptions. Due to the large number of uncertainties and assumptions, the estimated ICERs should be regarded as highly uncertain. The guidance issued by NICE in June 2010 as a result of the STA does not recommend imatinib as adjuvant treatment after resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumours, although individuals currently receiving adjuvant imatinib should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinician consider it appropriate to stop.

Cetuximab 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 cetuximab for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The ERG project ran between 22 January 2008 and 4 November 2008. The clinical evidence came from two unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mCRC. A third RCT submitted later compared cetuximab with irinotecan in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid (FA) and cetuximab with oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU and FA in patients with mCRC with liver metastases only. No published economic evaluations of cetuximab for first-line chemotherapy in mCRC were identified in the submission. A de novo model examined the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in patients with mCRC that was epidermal growth factor receptor positive, k-ras wild type and with liver metastases. The main source of clinical effectiveness evidence came from the first two RCTs which provided follow up information for 1-2 years. Secondary information was used to estimate survival for a further 22 years. The model focused on the patients for whom the treatment had been licensed. This limited the applicability of the model to the NHS setting in which patients would be a mixture of k-ras wild type and mutations and also a mixture of patients with liver metastases and other metastases. The difference in progression-free survival for the two trials was between 0.5 to 1.2 months over a 7-10 month period. Eight months' treatment with cetuximab, given as an initial loading dose and then weekly until progression, would cost around 22,932 pounds for an average man and 18,427 pounds for an average woman. It is uncertain whether this constitutes good value for money. The guidance issued by NICE on 25 September 2008 stated that cetuximab was not recommended for the first-line treatment of mCRC and people currently receiving cetuximab for the first-line treatment of mCRC should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop.

Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sorafenib according to its licensed indication for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The ERG report was based on the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The licensed indication for sorafenib specifies advanced HCC patients for whom locoregional intervention and surgery are unsuitable or had been unsuccessful. The clinical evidence came from a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol; SHARP) of sorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care, with 602 participants of a predominantly European ethnicity broadly comparable to the UK population. The submitted evidence indicated that for advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh grade A liver function and relatively good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sorafenib on average improves overall survival by 83 days relative to placebo, and also increases time-to-radiological disease progression. Sorafenib therapy had little or no effect on time-to-symptom progression or on quality of life as measured using a disease-specific questionnaire. Sorafenib treatment was associated with increased incidence of hypertension and of gastrointestinal and dermatological problems. However, the therapy was reasonably well tolerated and, in SHARP, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse events were similar in the sorafenib and placebo arms, although more temporary reductions in dose were required in the sorafenib than in the placebo group. In the base case, the manufacturer's submitted economic analysis generated a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 64,754 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ERG extracted individual patient data for overall survival and disease progression, reran the economic model to check the submitted cost-effectiveness results, and performed new analyses which the ERG considered relevant to the decision problem; these analyses delivered ICERs between 76,000 pounds/QALY and 86,000 pounds/QALY. The guidance issued by NICE (7 May 2009) stated that sorafenib, within its licensed indication, is not recommended for the treatment of advanced (Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer stage C) HCC patients for whom surgical or locoregional therapies have failed or are not suitable, and people currently receiving sorafenib for the treatment of HCC should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinician consider it appropriate to stop. Subsequently the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme to the Department of Health. The base-case ICER submitted by the manufacturer for this scheme was 51,899 pounds/QALY. When the ERG reran the model with inputs considered relevant to the decision problem the ICER estimates ranged between 53,000 pounds to 58,000 pounds/QALY and substantially higher values depending on the nature of the sensitivity analyses. NICE considered the impact of the patient access scheme and determined that it was not sufficient to alter the guidance.

Azacitidine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of azacitidine (aza) compared with conventional care regimes (CCR) for higher risk patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), based on the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The patient outcomes governing relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were defined as overall survival, time to progression (TTP) to AML, adverse events and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The clinical evidence was derived from an open-label randomised controlled trial referred to as study AZA-001. It compared aza with CCR in 358 patients with higher risk MDS, CMML and AML 20-30% blasts. The outcomes reported in AZA-001 included overall survival, TTP to AML and adverse events. No HRQoL results were reported; however, outcomes likely to impact on HRQoL were provided. The results showed that: the median overall survival was 24.5 months on aza, compared with 15.0 months in the CCR group (p = 0.0001); the response rates were low (complete remission 17% aza versus 8% CCR); the median time to transformation to AML was greater in the aza group (17.8 versus 11.5 months; p < 0.0001); and of patients who were red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent at baseline, 45% of those on aza became RBC transfusion-independent during the treatment period, compared with 11.8% in the CCR group (p < 0.0001). The ERG reran the submission's search strategies after some modifications incorporating minor improvements. The ERG analysed the submitted economic model (model 1) and identified a number of inconsistencies and errors within the model. The manufacturer submitted a revised model for analysis by the ERG. Using the issues identified in the earlier analysis, the ERG conducted those repairs to the revised model that were feasible within time constraints. The ERG ran this version in probabilistic sensitivity analyses to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. The results of these exploratory analyses indicated that: for standard-dose chemotherapy (SDC)-treated patients, of six treatment options available, best supportive care (BSC) was likely the most cost-effective option up to a threshold of 51,000 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [beyond 51,000 pounds/QALY, aza + low-dose chemotherapy (LDC) became cost-effective]; for LDC-treated patients, of four options available, BSC was again the most cost-effective option up to a willingness-to-pay threshold of 51,000 pounds/QALY (aza + LDC became cost-effective after 51,000 pounds/QALY); for BSC-treated patients, aza + BSC became cost-effective relative to BSC at a threshold of about 52,000 pounds/QALY. The ERG considers these results exploratory and considers that they should be viewed with caution. The AZA-001 study showed that, compared with CCR, those MDS patients receiving aza had prolonged median survival, had delayed progression to AML, had reduced dependence on transfusions and had a small improvement in response rate. Given the general paucity of economic modelling work in MDS and the limitations of the submitted industry model there is an evident need for an independent cost-effectiveness analysis of aza in MDS. At the time of writing, the guidance appraisal consultation document issued by NICE on 4 March 2010 states that azacitidine is not recommended as a treatment option for people not eligible for haemopoietic stem cell transplantation with the the following conditions: intermediate-2 and high-risk MDS according to the International Prognostic Scoring System, CMML with 10-29% marrow blasts without myeloproliferative disorder, or with AML with 20-30% blasts and multilineage dysplasia, according to World Health Organization classification.

[Income-related health inequalities in France in 2004: Decomposition and explanations]. / Les inégalités de santé selon le revenu en France en 2004 : décomposition et explications.

BACKGROUND: This analysis supplements existing work on social health inequalities at two levels: the measurement of health and the measurement of inequalities. Firstly, individual health status was measured using a subjective health indicator corrected within a promising cardinalisation method which had not yet been carried out on French data. Secondly, this study used an innovative methodology to measure income-related health inequalities, to understand the relationships between income, income inequality, various social determinants, and health. METHODS: The analysis was based on a sample of working-age adults from the 2004 Health and Health Insurance Survey. The methodology used in the study measures the total income-related health inequality using the concentration index. This index is based on a linear model explaining health according to several individual characteristics, such as age, sex, and various socioeconomic characteristics. The method thus takes into account both the causal relationships between the various explicative factors introduced in the model and their relationship with health. Furthermore, it concretely measures the contribution of the social determinants to income-related health inequalities. RESULTS: The results show an income-related health inequality favouring individuals with a higher income. Moreover, income level, supplementary private health insurance, education level, and social class account for the main contributions to inequality. Therefore, the decomposition method highlights population groups that policies should target. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that reducing income inequality is not sufficient to lower income-related health inequalities in France in 2004 and needs to be supplemented with the reduction of the relationship between income and health and the reduction of income inequality over socioeconomic status.