Volume-outcome relationships in open and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: administrative data 2006-2018.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to use recent evidence to investigate and update volume-outcome relationships after open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm in England. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from April 2006 to March 2018 were obtained. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Other outcomes included duration of hospital stay, readmissions within 30 days, and critical care requirements. Case-mix adjustment included age, sex, HES year, deprivation index, weekend admission, mode of admission, type of procedure and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Annual volume of all repairs combined appeared to be an appropriate measure of volume. After case-mix adjustment, a significant relationship between volume and in-hospital mortality was seen for OSR (P < 0·001) but not for EVAR (P = 0·169 for emergency and P = 0·363 for elective). The effect appeared to extend beyond 60 repairs per year to volumes above 100 repairs per year. There was no significant relationship between volume and duration of hospital stay or 30-day readmissions. In patients receiving emergency OSR, higher volume was associated with longer stay in critical care. CONCLUSION: Higher annual all-procedure volumes were associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality for OSR, but such a relationship was not significant for EVAR. There was not enough evidence for a volume effect on other outcomes.

Sex differences in national rates of repair of emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the sex differences in both the rate and type of repair for emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in England. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data sets from April 2002 to February 2015 were obtained. Clinical and administrative codes were used to identify patients who underwent primary emergency definitive repair of ruptured or intact AAA, and patients with a diagnosis of AAA who died in hospital without repair. These three groups included all patients with a primary AAA who presented as an emergency. Sex differences between repair rates and type of surgery (endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open repair) over time were examined. RESULTS: In total, 15 717 patients (83·3 per cent men) received emergency surgical intervention for ruptured AAA and 10 276 (81·2 per cent men) for intact AAA; 12 767 (62·0 per cent men) died in hospital without attempted repair. The unadjusted odds ratio for no repair in women versus men was 2·88 (95 per cent c.i. 2·75 to 3·02). Women undergoing repair of ruptured AAA were older and had a higher in-hospital mortality rate (50·0 versus 41·0 per cent for open repair; 30·9 versus 23·5 per cent for EVAR). After adjustment for age, deprivation and co-morbidities, the odds ratio for no repair in women versus men was 1·34 (1·28 to 1·40). The in-hospital mortality rate after emergency repair of an intact AAA was also higher among women. CONCLUSION: Women who present as an emergency with an AAA are less likely to undergo repair than men. Although some of this can be explained by differences in age and co-morbidities, the differences persist after case-mix adjustment.

Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir for Treating Chronic Hepatitis C: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal-An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Gilead, the company manufacturing ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LDV/SOF for treating chronic hepatitis C. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) Technology Assessment Group was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission (CS), the ERG review and the subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of LDV/SOF based upon the CS. The clinical effectiveness data for LDV/SOF were taken from ten trials: three phase III trials and seven phase II trials. Trials compared different durations of LDV/SOF, with and without ribavirin (RBV). There were no head-to-head trials comparing LDV/SOF with any comparator listed in the NICE scope. Data from the trials were mostly from populations with genotype 1 (GT1) disease, although some limited data were available for populations with genotypes 3 and 4. For GT1 treatment-naïve patients, sustained viral response for 12 weeks (SVR12) rates for LDV/SOF ranged from 93.1 to 99.4 % for subgroups of patients with non-cirrhotic disease, whilst SVR rates of 94.1 to 100 % were reported for subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. For GT1 treatment-experienced patients, SVR12 rates ranging from 95.4 to 100 % were reported for subgroups of non-cirrhotic patients, and SVR rates ranging from 81.8 to 100 % were reported within subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. Comparator data were not searched systematically as part of the submission, but were based on the company's previous NICE submission of sofosbuvir, with additional targeted searches. The ERG's critical appraisal of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns. The ERG's base case analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for LDV/SOF (+RBV) are dependent on (a) treatment durations, (b) whether patients have been previously treated and (c) whether patients have liver cirrhosis or not. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to use the approach taken in the ERG's exploratory analyses, in line with the marketing authorisation, which considered people with and without cirrhosis separately, and estimated the cost effectiveness for each recommended treatment duration of LDV/SOF.

The return of public health to local government in England: changing the parameters of the public health prioritization debate?

OBJECTIVES: To explore the influence of values and context in public health priority-setting in local government in England. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: Decision-makers' views were identified through semi-structured interviews and prioritization tools relevant for public health were reviewed. Interviews (29) were carried out with Health and Wellbeing Board members and other key stakeholders across three local authorities in England, following an introductory workshop. RESULTS: There were four main influences on priorities for public health investment in our case study sites: an organizational context where health was less likely to be associated with health care and where accountability was to a local electorate; a commissioning and priority-setting context (plan, do, study, act) located within broader local authority priority-setting processes; different views of what counts as evidence and, in particular, the role of local knowledge; and debates over what constitutes a public health intervention, triggered by the transfer of a public health budget from the NHS to local authorities in England. CONCLUSIONS: The relocation of public health into local authorities exposes questions over prioritizing public health investment, including the balance across lifestyle interventions and broader action on social determinants of health and the extent to which the public health evidence base influences local democratic decision-making. Action on wider social determinants reinforces not only the art and science but also the values and politics of public health.

Prioritising public health guidance topics in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.

OBJECTIVES: The Centre for Public Health (CPH), at the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for producing national guidance relating to the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of disease. Given the challenges of developing guidance in this area, choosing the most appropriate topics for further study is of fundamental importance. This paper explores the current prioritisation process and describes how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique, might be used to do so. STUDY DESIGN: A proposed approach is outlined, which was tested in a proof of concept pilot. This consisted of eight participants with experience of related NICE committees building scores for each topic together in a 'decision conference' setting. METHODS: Criteria were identified and subsequently weighted to indicate the relative importance of each. Participants then collaboratively estimated the performance of each topic on each criterion. RESULTS: Total scores for each topic were calculated, which could be ranked and used as the basis for better informed discussion for prioritising topics to recommend to the Minister for future guidance. Sensitivity analyses of the dataset found it to be robust. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing the right topics for guidance at the earliest possible time is of fundamental importance to public health guidance, and judgement is likely to play an important part in doing so. MCDA techniques offer a potentially useful approach to structuring the problem in a rational and transparent way. NICE should consider carefully whether such an approach might be worth pursuing in the future.

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

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

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

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

The cost-effectiveness of the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) structured education programme: an update using the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model.

AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of training in flexible intensive insulin therapy [as provided in the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) structured education programme] compared with no training for adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK using the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model. METHODS: The Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model was used to simulate the development of long-term microvascular and macrovascular diabetes-related complications and the occurrence of diabetes-related adverse events in 5000 adults with Type 1 diabetes. Total costs and quality-adjusted life years were estimated from a National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at a rate of 3.5%. The treatment effectiveness of DAFNE was modelled as a reduction in HbA1c that affected the risk of developing long-term diabetes-related complications. Probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: DAFNE resulted in greater life expectancy and reduced incidence of some diabetes-related complications compared with no DAFNE. DAFNE was found to generate an average of 0.0294 additional quality-adjusted life years for an additional cost of £426 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £14 400 compared with no DAFNE. There was a 54% probability that DAFNE would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that DAFNE is a cost-effective structured education programme for people with Type 1 diabetes and support its provision by the National Health Service in the UK.

Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers--Contemporary Biomarker Evaluation (RATPAC CBE).

OBJECTIVES: To test the diagnostic accuracy for detecting an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) using highly sensitive troponin assays and a range of new cardiac biomarkers of plaque destabilisation, myocardial ischaemia and necrosis; to test the prognostic accuracy for detecting adverse cardiac events using highly sensitive troponin assays and this range of new cardiac biomarkers; and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using highly sensitive troponin assays or this range of new cardiac biomarkers instead of an admission and 10- to 12-hour troponin measurement. DESIGN: Substudy of the point-of-care arm of the RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial. SETTING: The emergency departments of six hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Prospective admissions with chest pain and a non-diagnostic electrocardiogram randomised to point-of-care assessment or conventional management. INTERVENTIONS: Blood samples taken on admission and 90 minutes from admission for measurement of cardiac markers [cardiac troponin I (cTnI), myoglobin and creatine kinase MB isoenzyme (CK-MB)] by point-of-care testing. An additional blood sample was taken at admission and 90 minutes from admission for analysis of high-sensitivity cTnI (two methods) and cardiac troponin T (cTnT), myoglobin, heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP), copeptin and B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 1. Diagnostic accuracy compared with the universal definition of myocardial infarction utilising laboratory measurements of cardiac troponin performed at the participating sites together with measurements performed in a core laboratory. 2. Ability of biomarker measurements to predict major adverse cardiac events (death, non-fatal AMI, emergency revascularisation or hospitalisation for myocardial ischaemia) at 3 months' follow-up. 3. Comparison of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of different biomarker measurement strategies for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Samples were available from 850 out of 1132 patients enrolled in the study. Measurement of admission myoglobin [area under the curve (AUC) 0.76] and CK-MB (AUC 0.84) was diagnostically inferior and did not add to the diagnostic efficiency of cTnI (AUC 0.90-0.94) or cTnT (AUC 0.92) measurement on admission. Simultaneous measurement of H-FABP and cTnT or cTnI did improve admission diagnostic sensitivity to 0.78-0.92, but only to the same level as that achieved with troponin measured on admission and at 90 minutes from admission (0.78-0.95). Copeptin (AUC 0.62) and NTproBNP (AUC 0.85) measured on admission were not useful as diagnostic markers. As a prognostic marker, troponin measured on admission using a high-sensitivity assay (AUC 0.73-0.83) was equivalent to NTproBNP measurement (AUC 0.77) on admission, but superior to copeptin measurement (AUC 0.58). From modelling, 10-hour troponin measurement is likely to be cost-effective compared with rapid rule-out strategies only if a £30,000 per QALY threshold is used and patients can be discharged as soon as a negative result is available. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is the best single marker in patients presenting with chest pain. Additional measurements of myoglobin or CK-MB are not clinically effective or cost-effective. The optimal timing for measurement of cardiac troponin remains to be defined. Copeptin measurement is not recommended. H-FABP requires further investigation before it can be recommended for simultaneous measurement with high-sensitivity troponin in patients with acute chest pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN37823923. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 15. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of diagnostic strategies for suspected acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Current practice for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) involves troponin testing 10-12 hours after symptom onset to diagnose myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with a negative troponin can be investigated further with computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) or exercise electrocardiography (ECG). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of early biomarkers for MI, the prognostic accuracy of biomarkers for major adverse cardiac adverse events (MACEs) in troponin-negative patients, the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA and exercise ECG for coronary artery disease (CAD) and the prognostic accuracy of CTCA and exercise ECG for MACEs in patients with suspected ACS. We then aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using alternative biomarker strategies to diagnose MI, and using biomarkers, CTCA and exercise ECG to risk-stratify troponin-negative patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), NHS Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment database from 1985 (CTCA review) or 1995 (biomarkers review) to November 2010, reviewed citation lists and contacted experts to identify relevant studies. REVIEW METHODS: Diagnostic studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool and prognostic studies using a framework adapted for the project. Meta-analysis was conducted using bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. We developed a decision-analysis model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative biomarker strategies to diagnose MI, and the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers, CTCA or exercise ECG to risk-stratify patients with a negative troponin. Strategies were applied to a theoretical cohort of patients with suspected ACS. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of each strategy compared with the next most effective, taking a health-service perspective and a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity (95% predictive interval) were 77% (29-96%) and 93% (46-100%) for troponin I, 80% (33-97%) and 91% (53-99%) for troponin T (99th percentile threshold), 81% (50-95%) and 80% (26-98%) for quantitative heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP), 68% (11-97%) and 92% (20-100%) for qualitative H-FABP, 77% (19-98%) and 39% (2-95%) for ischaemia-modified albumin and 62% (35-83%) and 83% (35-98%) for myoglobin. CTCA had 94% (61-99%) sensitivity and 87% (16-100%) specificity for CAD. Positive CTCA and positive-exercise ECG had relative risks of 5.8 (0.6-24.5) and 8.0 (2.3-22.7) for MACEs. In most scenarios in the economic analysis presentation, high-sensitivity troponin measurement was the most effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than the £20,000-30,000/QALY threshold (ICER £7487-17,191/QALY). CTCA appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy for patients with a negative troponin, with an ICER of £11,041/QALY. However, when a lower MACE rate was assumed, CTCA had a high ICER (£262,061/QALY) and the no-testing strategy was optimal. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial variation between the primary studies and heterogeneity in their results. Findings of the economic model were dependent on assumptions regarding the value of detecting and treating positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although presentation troponin has suboptimal sensitivity, measurement of a 10-hour troponin level is unlikely to be cost-effective in most scenarios compared with a high-sensitivity presentation troponin. CTCA may be a cost-effective strategy for troponin-negative patients, but further research is required to estimate the effect of CTCA on event rates and health-care costs. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or metaanalyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies. The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases--Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases--NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. REVIEW METHODS: The clinical effectiveness systematic review was undertaken following the principles published by the NHS CRD. We included RCTs whose population was people with AD. The intervention and comparators depended on disease severity, measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). INTERVENTIONS: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine; moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--memantine. Comparators: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--placebo or best supportive care (BSC); moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, placebo or BSC; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--placebo or BSC. The outcomes were clinical, global, functional, behavioural, quality of life, adverse events, costs and cost-effectiveness. Where appropriate, data were pooled using pair-wise meta-analysis, multiple outcome measures, metaregression and mixedtreatment comparisons. The decision model was based broadly on the structure of the three-state Markov model described in the previous technology assessment report, based upon time to institutionalisation, parameterised with updated estimates of effectiveness, costs and utilities. RESULTS: Notwithstanding the uncertainty of our results, we found in the base case that the AChEIs are probably cost saving at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £'30,000 per qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) for people with mild-to-moderate AD. For this class of drugs, there is a > 99% probability that the AChEIs are more cost-effective than BSC. These analyses assume that the AChEIs have no effect on survival. For the AChEIs, in people with mild to moderate AD, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that donepezil is the most cost-effective, with a 28% probability of being the most cost-effective option at a WTP of £'30,000 per QALY (27% at a WTP of £'20,000 per QALY). In the deterministic results, donepezil dominates the other drugs and BSC, which, along with rivastigmine patches, are associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs. Thus, although galantamine has a slightly cheaper total cost than donepezil (£'69,592 vs £'69,624), the slightly greater QALY gains from donepezil (1.616 vs 1.617) are enough for donepezil to dominate galantamine.The probability that memantine is cost-effective in a moderate to severe cohort compared with BSC at a WTP of £'30,000 per QALY is 38% (and 28% at a WTP of £'20,000 per QALY). The deterministic ICER for memantine is £'32,100 per/QALY and the probabilistic ICER is £'36,700 per/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Trials were of 6 months maximum follow-up, lacked reporting of key outcomes, provided no subgroup analyses and used insensitive measures. Searches were limited to English language, The model does not include behavioural symptoms and there is uncertainty about the model structure and parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The additional clinical effectiveness evidence identified continues to suggest clinical benefit from the AChEIs in alleviating AD symptoms, although there is debate about the magnitude of the effect. Although there is also new evidence on the effectiveness of memantine, it remains less supportive of this drug's use than the evidence for AChEIs. The conclusions concerning cost-effectiveness are quite different from the previous assessment. This is because both the changes in effectiveness and costs between drug use and non-drug use underlying the ICERs are very small. This leads to highly uncertain results, which are very sensitive to change. RESEARCH PRIORITIES: RCTs to include mortality, time to institutionalisation and quality of life, powered for subgroup analysis. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.