Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives: To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results: The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations: The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions: Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Women who are pregnant or who have given birth in the previous 6 weeks are at increased risk of developing blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Small doses of blood thinners given by injection are safe in pregnancy and can reduce the risk of blood clots, but they can slightly increase the risk of bleeding. Healthcare professionals use risk assessment tools to decide if a woman is at high risk of blood clots and should be offered blood thinners. We wanted to find out what research would be useful to help them make better decisions. We reviewed previous research to establish which risk assessment tools are best at predicting who will have a blood clot. We then created a mathematical model to predict what would happen when using different risk assessment tools to decide who should be offered blood thinners, both during pregnancy and after giving birth. We found that there was a lot of uncertainty about which women should be offered blood thinners. This was mainly because there have only been a few small studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment in pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. We estimated the value of future studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment, in groups of women with different risk factors, by predicting what information we would gain and how this would be used to improve decisions about using blood thinners. To find out whether these studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood thinners and surveyed healthcare professionals. We found that a study in obese women who have recently given birth would have substantial value and may be more acceptable than a study in pregnant women with a previous blood clot.

Estimating the value of future research into thromboprophylaxis for women during pregnancy and after delivery: a value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment models (RAMs) are used to select women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy and the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the value of potential future studies that would reduce the decision uncertainty associated with offering thromboprophylaxis according to available RAMs in the following groups: high-risk antepartum women (eg, prior VTE), unselected postpartum women, and postpartum women with risk factors (obesity or cesarean delivery). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate clinical outcomes, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years for different thromboprophylaxis strategies, including thromboprophylaxis for all, thromboprophylaxis for none, and RAM-based thromboprophylaxis. The expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty. The value of future research studies was estimated using expected value of sample information analysis. Costs were assessed from a health and social services perspective. RESULTS: The expected value of perfect information analysis identified high decision uncertainty for high-risk antepartum women (£21.8 million) and obese postpartum women (£13.4 million), which was largely attributable to uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing VTE. A randomized controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis compared with none in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value (£2.8 million; 300 participants per arm). A trial in women with previous VTE would have higher value but would be less acceptable. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on estimating the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women with additional risk factors who have not had a previous VTE.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). DESIGN: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221094.

The Incidence and Costs of Adverse Events Associated with Antidepressants: Results from a Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Multi-Country Economic Model.

Purpose: There is variation in the safety profile of antidepressants. Rates of adverse events along with the costs of treating them can be an important factor influencing the choice of depression treatment. This study sought to estimate the comparative safety of commonly prescribed antidepressants, and how the costs of treating these varied across European countries. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted (in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) to identify placebo-controlled trials reporting rates of at least one type of sexual dysfunction, weight change, insomnia, anxiety, and anhedonia. Eight antidepressants were considered: duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine. This evidence was synthesised via Bayesian random effects network meta-analyses to provide comparative estimates of safety. A systematic search identified country-specific costs of managing depression and adverse events of antidepressants. Evidence on costs and safety was combined in an economic model to provide country-specific costs for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, and Poland. Results: Trazodone had the lowest rates of both insomnia (odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.31 to 1.38) and anxiety (0.13, <0.01 to 1.80). All antidepressants were associated with increased rates of sexual dysfunction relative to placebo. Weight change was largest for fluoxetine (kg change -1.01, -1.40 to -0.60) and sertraline (-1.00, -1.36 to -0.65), although heterogeneity was extreme for this outcome. No evidence was identified for anhedonia. Total costs were lowest for trazodone in all nine of the countries evaluated. This was primarily due to reduced rates of treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Trazodone generally had the best safety profile of the antidepressants evaluated. This led to healthcare costs being lowest for trazodone in all nine European countries, emphasising the importance of considering rates of adverse events when choosing a pharmacological treatment to treat symptoms of depression.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to synthesize evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir (RDV) for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in England and Wales. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted informed by 2 large trials and uses a partitioned survival approach to assess short- and long-term clinical consequences and costs associated with COVID-19 in a hypothetical cohort of hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen at the start of treatment. Given that it is uncertain whether RDV reduces death, 2 analyses are presented, assuming RDV either reduces death or does not. Published sources were used for long-term clinical, quality of life, and cost parameters. RESULTS: Under the assumption that RDV reduces death, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RDV is estimated at £11 881 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with standard of care (SoC) (probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £12 400). The probability for RDV to be cost-effective is 74% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RDV was no longer cost-effective when the hazard ratio for overall survival compared with SoC was >0·915. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that using RDV for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is likely to represent a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources at current willingness-to-pay threshold in England and Wales, only if it prevents death. Results needs to be interpreted caution as vaccination was introduced and the SoC and evidence available have also evolved considerably since the analysis is conducted.

Short-Term Pediatric Acclimatization to Adaptive Hearing Aid Technology.

Purpose This exploratory study assessed the perceptual, cognitive, and academic learning effects of an adaptive, integrated, directionality, and noise reduction hearing aid program in pediatric users. Method Fifteen pediatric hearing aid users (6-12 years old) received new bilateral, individually fitted Oticon Opn hearing aids programmed with OpenSound Navigator (OSN) processing. Word recognition in noise, sentence repetition in quiet, nonword repetition, vocabulary learning, selective attention, executive function, memory, and reading and mathematical abilities were measured within 1 week of the initial hearing aid fitting and 2 months post fit. Caregivers completed questionnaires assessing their child's listening and communication abilities prior to study enrollment and after 2 months of using the study hearing aids. Results Caregiver reporting indicated significant improvements in speech and sound perception, spatial sound awareness, and the ability to participate in conversations. However, there was no positive change in performance in any of the measured skills. Mathematical scores significantly declined after 2 months. Conclusions OSN provided a perceived improvement in functional benefit, compared to their previous hearing aids, as reported by caregivers. However, there was no positive change in listening skills, cognition, and academic success after 2 months of using OSN. Findings may have been impacted by reporter bias, limited sample size, and a relatively short trial period. This study took place during the summer when participants were out of school, which may have influenced the decline in mathematical scores. The results support further exploration with age- and audiogram-matched controls, larger sample sizes, and longer test-retest intervals that correspond to the academic school year.

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms. OBJECTIVES: An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes. INTERVENTIONS: Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000. LIMITATIONS: Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study). STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520. 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. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used in relation to individuals who present to their general practitioner with persistent symptoms that cannot easily be explained, even after adequate physical examination and appropriate investigations. Common interventions delivered in primary care tend to be psychological interventions, behaviour therapies or physical exercise therapies. These therapies often aim to change the behaviours of the individual that may make symptoms worse. We conducted systematic reviews of existing evidence to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of behavioural interventions delivered in primary care, and a cost-effectiveness analysis to see whether or not they offer good value. Studies measured improvement in outcomes, such as physical or psychological symptoms, or health-related quality of life. There were large differences in the nature of the behavioural interventions delivered and so we grouped them into 'types'. These included intervention types involving exercise (e.g. aerobic or strengthening, or graded activity); different types of psychotherapy, for example cognitive­behavioural therapy; interventions focused on relaxation or social/emotional support; interventions offering education and information; and interventions by general practitioners, for example receiving training on how to implement a behavioural approach to treating medically unexplained symptoms. Statistical analyses were conducted to investigate which, if any, of the intervention types were effective when compared with usual care. Results indicated that some of the behavioural intervention types showed beneficial effects at the end of treatment and at short-term follow-up. In particular, cognitive­behavioural therapy at a higher intensity, and therapies consisting of components of more than one intervention type (i.e. multimodal therapies), showed beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms such as pain, fatigue or bowel symptoms. High-intensity cognitive­behavioural therapy, other types of psychotherapies and interventions focusing on relaxation and social/emotional support showed some beneficial effects on mood outcomes such as depression and anxiety. By long-term follow-up, effects had diminished. More complex measures of symptom load or 'somatisation' showed fewer beneficial effects. We found that no one intervention improved outcomes across all medically unexplained symptoms. However, the results of the statistical analyses should be interpreted with caution. Not only were there differences in the types of behavioural interventions trialled in the included studies, but there were also differences in the characteristics of interventions within the same type. Participants of the studies had a range of symptoms and syndromes, of varying severity and duration. Interventions of the same type varied in how they were delivered, for example the qualifications of the therapist and the contact time spent between therapist and patient. Owing to the limited number of studies in each intervention type, it has not been possible to identify how these differences influenced the results. Interventions delivered by general practitioners themselves did not generally show beneficial effects. However, the relationship between general practitioner and patient was perceived to be important. Patients valued receiving explanations for their symptoms and learning self-management techniques. This was facilitated by good relationships with their health-care practitioner. Health-care practitioners reported a need for training and supervision, but patients reported that the primary care setting was both appropriate and helpful. A successful behavioural intervention should allow a patient and their care provider to maintain a relationship where the patient feels supported. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of the interventions showed a wide variation in costs. Costs varied between different intervention types, but also between interventions of the same type. Differences in the nature of interventions within the same intervention type, for example whether delivery is to groups or to individuals, make comparisons difficult. Future research should focus on identifying how the relationship between the general practitioner and their patient can influence the effectiveness of a behavioural intervention when it is conducted in the primary care setting. In addition, more research is needed to explore which aspects of the more promising interventions are influencing their effectiveness.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. DATA SOURCES: For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. LIMITATIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. 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. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture, known as low-level (or 'low-energy') trauma. Some people are at particularly high risk of fragility fractures. The first treatment used is often a bisphosphonate, but non-bisphosphonate treatments are alternatives. AIMS: We aimed to determine how effective non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]} are at preventing fractures, whether or not treatment has any risks for patients and whether or not the clinical benefits are achieved at a reasonable cost. METHODS: We have systematically identified and examined trials that assessed the clinical effects of non-bisphosphonates. For each clinical outcome, we have combined data from multiple trials to estimate the clinical effectiveness of each non-bisphosphonate treatment. We combined data from published sources in an economic model to estimate lifetime costs and clinical benefits for each non-bisphosphonate and compared these with the estimated costs and clinical outcomes for untreated patients and patients treated with bisphosphonates. RESULTS: All non-bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fractures compared with no treatment. For fractures at the hip or at any non-vertebral site, all of the non-bisphosphonates reduced the average number of fractures, but, for some non-bisphosphonates, we could not exclude the possibility that this was a chance finding. The chance of patients experiencing serious side effects was generally similar regardless of whether patients took non-bisphosphonates, bisphosphonates or placebo (a dummy pill). Blood clots were more common in patients taking raloxifene than in those taking placebo, but these were still a rare outcome (fewer than 1 in 100). The benefits of denosumab, teriparatide and romosozumab are few compared with their costs. For raloxifene, the risks generally outweigh the benefits. Treatment with bisphosphonates is likely to represent better value for money than treatment with non-bisphosphonates.

Clinical effectiveness of denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab, and teriparatide for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness of denosumab (DEN), raloxifene (RLX), romosozumab (ROMO) and teriparatide (TPTD), within their licensed (or anticipated licensed) indications, for the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Nine electronic databases and trial registries were searched up to the end of July 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised controlled trials (RCT) in a population at risk of osteoporotic fracture, comparing these four non-bisphosphonates DEN, RLX, ROMO, or TPTD with each other, a non-active treatment, or the bisphosphonates alendronate (ALN), risedronate (RIS), ibandronate (IBN) and zoledronic acid (ZOL). Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were used to determine the relative effectiveness of treatments. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 7898 citations. Forty-six RCTs of non-bisphosphonates met the inclusion criteria for the review and provided data for analyses. Additionally 49 RCTs of bisphosphonates were used in the NMAs. Forty-six RCTs were included in the NMA of vertebral fracture data, 23 RCTs for hip fractures and 73 RCTs in the NMA of femoral neck bone mineral density (FN BMD). For vertebral fractures, all four non-bisphosphonates showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo: TPTD HR 0.23 (95% credible internal (CrI) 0.16, 0.32); ROMO followed by ALN 0.25 (95% CrI 0.15, 0.43); DEN HR 0.30 (95% CrI 0.21, 0.43); RLX HR 0.61 (95% CrI 0.44, 0.80). The four non-bisphosphonates interventions studied also showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo for FN BMD, and for hip fractures TPTD, ROMO followed by ALN, and DEN showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The four non-bisphosphonate interventions studied were all statistically significantly clinically effective for reducing vertebral fractures when compared to placebo, and were beneficial for change in FN BMD compared to placebo. All reduced hip fractures, and this was statistically significant for TPTD, ROMO followed by ALN, and DEN.

Cabozantinib and vandetanib for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival. Cabozantinib (Cometriq®; Ipsen, Paris, France) and vandetanib (Caprelsa®; Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA) are currently the treatment modality of choice for treating unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. (2) To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib versus each other and best supportive care. (3) To identify key areas for primary research. (4) To estimate the overall cost of these treatments in England. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications (searched from inception to November 2016), European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review [including a network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: The systematic review identified two placebo-controlled trials. The Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with unresectable locally advanced, metastatic and progressive MTC. The ZETA trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Both drugs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) more than the placebo (p < 0.001). The NMA suggested that, within the symptomatic and progressive MTC population, the effects on PFS were similar (vandetanib vs. cabozantinib: hazard ratio 1.14, 95% credible interval 0.41 to 3.09). Neither trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for cabozantinib or vandetanib versus placebo, although data from ZETA were subject to potential confounding. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib demonstrated significantly better objective response rates and calcitonin (CTN) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response rates than placebo. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. The assessment group model indicates that, within the EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within the restricted EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC with CEA/CTN doubling times of ≤ 24 months), the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. The maximum annual budget impact within the symptomatic and progressive population is estimated to be ≈£2.35M for cabozantinib and ≈£5.53M for vandetanib. The costs of vandetanib in the restricted EU-label population are expected to be lower. LIMITATIONS: The intention-to-treat populations of the EXAM and ZETA trials are notably different. The analyses of ZETA subgroups may be subject to confounding as a result of differences in baseline characteristics and open-label vandetanib use. Attempts to statistically adjust for treatment switching were unsuccessful. No HRQoL evidence was identified for the MTC population. CONCLUSIONS: The identified trials suggest that cabozantinib and vandetanib improve PFS more than the placebo; however, significant OS benefits were not demonstrated. The economic analyses indicate that within the EU-label population, the ICERs for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per QALY gained. Within the restricted EU-label population, the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES: (1) Primary research assessing the long-term effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib within relevant subgroups. (2) Reanalyses of the ZETA trial to investigate the impact of adjusting for open-label vandetanib use using appropriate statistical methods. (3) Studies assessing the impact of MTC on HRQoL. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016050403. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that presents as a mass of tumours in the thyroid gland of the neck. MTC affects both patients' health-related quality of life and survival. Targeted therapies (cabozantinib and vandetanib) are currently used to treat unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. The evidence for the use of cabozantinib and vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC was reviewed, and two clinical trials were identified. The trials suggest that both drugs improve progression-free survival. Neither trial demonstrated significant survival benefits for cabozantinib or vandetanib. Both drugs produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. Whether or not these therapies represent good value for money for the NHS was also assessed. Analyses indicate that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (a measure of cost-effectiveness) for cabozantinib and vandetanib versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within a subgroup of patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC and carcinoembryonic antigen and/or calcitonin doubling times of ≤ 24 months, the ICER for vandetanib versus BSC remains > £66,000 per QALY gained.

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.

Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trials' comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis. CONCLUSION: The estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Ibrutinib for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence for ibrutinib included one randomised controlled trial comparing ibrutinib and temsirolimus and two single-arm studies. The company's indirect comparison of ibrutinib versus rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) produced a hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.28. The ERG's random effects network meta-analysis (NMA) indicated that the treatment effect on PFS was highly uncertain (HR 0.27; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.06-1.26). The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus R-chemo for the treatment of R/R MCL from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. Based on a re-run of the company's model by the ERG, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus R-chemo [including the company's original patient access scheme (PAS)] was expected to be £76,014 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG had several concerns regarding the company's model structure and the evidence used to inform its parameters. The ERG's preferred analysis, which used the ERG's NMA and the observed Kaplan-Meier curve for time to ibrutinib discontinuation and excluded long-term disutilities for R-chemo, produced ICERs of £63,340 per QALY gained for the overall R/R MCL population and of £44,711 per QALY gained for patients with one prior treatment. Following an updated PAS and consideration of evidence from a later data-cut of the RAY trial, the appraisal committee concluded that the most plausible ICER for the one prior treatment subgroup was likely to be lower than the company's estimate of £49,848 per QALY gained. The company's ICER for the overall R/R MCL population was higher, at £62,650 per QALY gained. The committee recommended ibrutinib as an option for treating R/R MCL in adults only if they have received only one previous line of therapy and the company provides ibrutinib with the discount agreed in the commercial access agreement with NHS England.

Pirfenidone for Treating Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the use of pirfenidone (Esbriet®, Roche) for the treatment of mild to moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2013. NICE decided to review existing guidance following publication of an additional clinical trial, and invited the manufacturer of pirfenidone to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of mild to moderate IPF when compared with best supportive care (BSC) or nintedanib; nintedanib was a comparator only for moderate IPF. An independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) critiqued the company submission and this paper summarises their report and subsequent NICE guidance. The key clinical effectiveness evidence was based on three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and an open-label extension study. Supportive data were provided from two additional RCTs conducted in Japan, while one additional open-label study was included for safety outcomes. Meta-analysis of the three key RCTs found pirfenidone to be effective at reducing disease progression compared with placebo, but statistically significant differences were not identified in all of the RCTs. A statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality was only demonstrated when pooling data across studies. The treatment effects of pirfenidone and nintedanib were broadly similar, based on an indirect comparison using network meta-analysis, although they have slightly different adverse event profiles. There remains considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness estimates for pirfenidone versus BSC, particularly due to uncertainty regarding the duration of treatment effect and the method used to implement the stopping rule within the economic model.

Assessing prognosis and prediction of treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease associated with reduced quality of life and substantial costs. It is unclear which tests and assessment tools allow the best assessment of prognosis in people with early RA and whether or not variables predict the response of patients to different drug treatments. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on the use of selected tests and assessment tools in patients with early RA (1) in the evaluation of a prognosis (review 1) and (2) as predictive markers of treatment response (review 2). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; searched to September 2016), registers, key websites, hand-searching of reference lists of included studies and key systematic reviews and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Review 1 - primary studies on the development, external validation and impact of clinical prediction models for selected outcomes in adult early RA patients. Review 2 - primary studies on the interaction between selected baseline covariates and treatment (conventional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) on salient outcomes in adult early RA patients. RESULTS: Review 1 - 22 model development studies and one combined model development/external validation study reporting 39 clinical prediction models were included. Five external validation studies evaluating eight clinical prediction models for radiographic joint damage were also included. c-statistics from internal validation ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for radiographic progression (different definitions, six studies) and 0.78 to 0.82 for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Predictive performance in external validations varied considerably. Three models [(1) Active controlled Study of Patients receiving Infliximab for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (ASPIRE) C-reactive protein (ASPIRE CRP), (2) ASPIRE erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASPIRE ESR) and (3) Behandelings Strategie (BeSt)] were externally validated using the same outcome definition in more than one population. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis suggested substantial uncertainty in the expected predictive performance of models in a new sample of patients. Review 2 - 12 studies were identified. Covariates examined included anti-citrullinated protein/peptide anti-body (ACPA) status, smoking status, erosions, rheumatoid factor status, C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen joint count (SJC), body mass index and vascularity of synovium on power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS). Outcomes examined included erosions/radiographic progression, disease activity, physical function and Disease Activity Score-28 remission. There was statistical evidence to suggest that ACPA status, SJC and PDUS status at baseline may be treatment effect modifiers, but not necessarily that they are prognostic of response for all treatments. Most of the results were subject to considerable uncertainty and were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis in review 1 was limited by the availability of only a small number of external validation studies. Studies rarely investigated the interaction between predictors and treatment. SUGGESTED RESEARCH PRIORITIES: Collaborative research (including the use of individual participant data) is needed to further develop and externally validate the clinical prediction models. The clinical prediction models should be validated with respect to individual treatments. Future assessments of treatment by covariate interactions should follow good statistical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Review 1 - uncertainty remains over the optimal prediction model(s) for use in clinical practice. Review 2 - in general, there was insufficient evidence that the effect of treatment depended on baseline characteristics. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042402. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Rapid diagnostic test for antenatal syphilis screening in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the test performance including sensitivity and specificity of rapid immunochromatographic syphilis (ICS) point-of-care (POC) tests at antenatal clinics compared with reference standard tests (non-treponemal (TP) and TP tests) for active syphilis in pregnant women. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CRD, Cochrane Library and LILACS) to March 2016 for diagnostic accuracy studies of ICS test and standard reference tests for syphilis in pregnant women. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). A bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters. Results were presented using a coupled forest plot of sensitivity and specificity and a scatter plot. RESULTS: The methodological quality of the five included studies with regards to risk of bias and applicability concern judgements was either low or unclear. One study was judged as high risk of bias for patient selection due to exclusion of pregnant women with a previous history of syphilis, and one study was judged at high risk of bias for study flow and timing as not all patients were included in the analysis. Five studies contributed to the meta-analysis, providing a pooled sensitivity and specificity for ICS of 0.85 (95% CrI: 0.73 to 0.92) and 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.95 to 0.99), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This review and meta-analysis observed that rapid ICS POC tests have a high sensitivity and specificity when performed in pregnant women at antenatal clinics. However, the methodological quality of the existing evidence base should be taken into consideration when interpreting these results. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016036335.

Mepolizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company (GlaxoSmithKline) that manufactures mepolizumab (Nucala®) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and omalizumab, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials (DREAM, MENSA and SIRIUS) comparing add-on mepolizumab with placebo plus SoC. The relevant population was defined in terms of degree of asthma severity (four or more exacerbations in the previous year and/or dependency on maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]) and degree of eosinophilia (a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µl in the previous year) based on post hoc subgroup analyses of the pivotal trials. Other subpopulations were considered throughout the appraisal, defined by different eosinophil measurements, number of exacerbations and dependency (or lack thereof) on mOCS. Statistically significant reductions in clinically significant exacerbations were observed in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with SoC meta-analysed across MENSA and DREAM in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (rate ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.62) as well as in the relevant population (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.62). In terms of quality of life, differences on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in MENSA for add-on subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg vs. placebo were 7 and 7.5 units in the modified ITT and relevant populations, respectively. A number of issues in the clinical evidence base warrant caution in its interpretation. The ERG noted that the definition of SoC used in the trials differed from that in clinical practice, where patients with severe uncontrolled asthma start treatment with a mOCS. The company's economic post-consultation analysis incorporating a confidential patient access scheme (PAS) estimated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC was £27,418 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the relevant population if patients stopped mepolizumab after 1 year unless (1) the number of exacerbations decreased at least 50% or (2) a reduction in corticosteroids dose was achieved whilst maintaining asthma control. The ERG applied an age adjustment to all utilities and corrected the post-continuation assessment utilities, which resulted in an ICER for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC of £29,163 per QALY gained. The ERG noted that this ICER was not robust for patients who continued treatment due to a corticosteroid dose reduction where exacerbations had decreased by less than 50%, because corticosteroid dose reduction was not allowed in the main trial in which the evidence was gathered (MENSA). The NICE appraisal committee (AC) concluded that add-on mepolizumab could be recommended as an option for treating severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adults for the relevant population when the stopping rule suggested by the company was applied. The AC also concluded that the comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab was not clinically relevant or methodologically robust.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016. REVIEW METHODS: Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness. LIMITATIONS: The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.