Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the views of participants from different income-status countries on outcome selection for a burn care Core Outcome Set (COS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data collected during a two round Delphi survey to prioritise the most important outcomes in burn care research. RESULTS: There was considerable agreement between participants from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) across outcomes. The groups agreed on 91% of 88 outcomes in round 1 and 92% of 100 in round 2. In cases of discordance, the consensus of participants from LMICs was to include the outcome and for participants from HICs to exclude. There was also considerable agreement between the groups for the top-ten ranking outcomes. Discordance in outcome prioritisation gives an insight into the different values clinicians from LMICs place on outcomes compared to those from HICs. Limitations of the study were that outcome rankings from international patients were not available. Healthcare professionals from LMICs were not involved in the final consensus meeting. CONCLUSION: COS developers should consider the need for a COS to be global at protocol stage. Global COS should include equal representation from both LMICs and HICs at all stages of development.

Directly Acting Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation in England and Wales: Cost-Effectiveness Model and Value of Information Analysis.

Objectives. Determine the optimal, licensed, first-line anticoagulant for prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in England and Wales from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and estimate value to decision making of further research. Methods. We developed a cost-effectiveness model to compare warfarin (international normalized ratio target range 2-3) with directly acting (or non-vitamin K antagonist) oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, edoxaban 60 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg, over 30 years post treatment initiation. In addition to death, the 17-state Markov model included the events stroke, bleed, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage. Input parameters were informed by systematic literature reviews and network meta-analysis. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) were estimated to provide an upper bound on value of further research. Results. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have positive expected incremental net benefit compared to warfarin, suggesting they are likely cost-effective. Apixaban has highest expected incremental net benefit (£7533), followed by dabigatran (£6365), rivaroxaban (£5279), and edoxaban (£5212). There was considerable uncertainty as to the optimal DOAC, with the probability apixaban has highest net benefit only 60%. Total estimated population EVPI was £17.94 million (17.85 million, 18.03 million), with relative effect between apixaban versus dabigatran making the largest contribution with EVPPI of £7.95 million (7.66 million, 8.24 million). Conclusions. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have higher expected net benefit than warfarin but there is considerable uncertainty between the DOACs. Apixaban had the highest expected net benefit and greatest probability of having highest net benefit, but there is considerable uncertainty between DOACs. A head-to-head apixaban versus dabigatran trial may be of value.

Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis.

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements. OBJECTIVE: To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. DESIGN: Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials. SETTING: Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention). PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE). INTERVENTIONS: NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models. RESULTS: Apixaban (Eliquis®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana®, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication. CONCLUSIONS: NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE. LIMITATIONS: These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs. FUTURE WORK: Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.