A Comparison of Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures Using Data From Nivolumab Trials: EQ-5D-3L, Mapping to the EQ-5D-5L, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in condition-specific preference measures, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D). This research assessed the implications of using utility indices on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L, a mapping of EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L, and the QLU-C10D, and compared their psychometric properties. METHODS: Data were taken from 8 phase 3 randomized controlled trials of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab for the treatment of solid tumors. Utilities for progression-related states were calculated using the UK and English value sets and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from established UK cost-effectiveness models. The psychometric properties of the utility indices were assessed using pooled trial data. RESULTS: Compared with the EQ-5D-3L index, the mapped EQ-5D-5L index yielded an average of 6% more and the QLU-C10D index an average of 2% fewer incremental QALYs for nivolumab versus comparators. All indices could differentiate between groups defined by performance status, cancer stage, or self-reported health status at baseline and detect meaningful changes in performance status, tumor response, health status, and quality of life over approximately 12 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lower QALY yield of the QLU-C10D was balanced by evidence of greater validity and responsiveness. Benefits gained from using the QLU-C10D may be apparent when treatments affect targeted symptoms and functional aspects, including sleep, bowel function, appetite, nausea, and fatigue. The observed differences in QALYs may not be sufficiently large to affect health technology assessment decisions.

Lurasidone compared to other atypical antipsychotic monotherapies for bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lurasidone versus other atypical antipsychotic monotherapy agents in patients with bipolar depression, using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: Fourteen randomised clinical trials (6221 patients) of lurasidone, quetiapine (extended release and immediate release), aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone for bipolar depression were included. Efficacy assessments included change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), rates of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) and remission (MADRS ≤12 at study endpoint), and change in the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder-Severity (CGI-BP-S) scale. Tolerability outcomes included weight, somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and all-cause discontinuation. Changes from baseline or odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) were evaluated. RESULTS: Improvement in the MADRS associated with lurasidone treatment was significantly greater than placebo (-4.70, 95%CrI: -7.20, -2.21), aripiprazole (-3.62, 95%CrI: -7.04, -0.20), and ziprasidone (-3.38, 95%CrI: -6.68, -0.11), but not olanzapine (-0.15, 95%CrI: -3.12, 2.74) or quetiapine (0.10, 95%CrI: -2.68, 2.84). Results for improvement in the CGI-BP-S, and for response and remission were similar. Lurasidone was associated with less weight gain than olanzapine (-2.54 kg, 95%CrI: -3.42, -1.67) and quetiapine (-0.83kg, 95%CrI: -1.59, -0.08); and with lower rates of somnolence than quetiapine (OR: 0.33, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.82) and ziprasidone (OR: 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.09, 0.93). No significant differences among atypical antipsychotic agents were observed in rates of discontinuation or in rates of EPS. CONCLUSIONS: In this network meta-analysis, lurasidone was found to be more efficacious than aripiprazole and ziprasidone, and was associated with less weight gain than quetiapine and olanzapine and less somnolence than quetiapine and ziprasidone.

The Cost-effectiveness of Dulaglutide 1.5mg versus Exenatide QW for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in France.

INTRODUCTION: Dulaglutide is a novel onceweekly administered glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus exenatide QW for the management of T2DM in France. METHODS: The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the expected lifetime direct medical costs and outcomes of T2DM from the perspective of the French National Health Service. In the absence of head-to-head data, relative efficacy was derived from a network meta-analysis. Patient cohort characteristics were derived from the AWARD-2 trial. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before escalating to insulin therapy. Costs included treatment costs and costs associated with long-term complications of T2DM. Utilities were estimated based on a recent systematic review. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were generated. RESULTS: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with lower costs (lifetime costs €41,562 vs €43,021) and increased health benefits (lifetime quality-adjusted life years: QALYs 9.804 vs 9.757) versus exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust across a range of plausible input parameters. The CEAC indicated a 99.5% probability that dulaglutide would be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €30,000. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced expected costs and increased expected QALYs when compared against exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. Compared with exenatide QW, dulaglutide 1.5 mg can provide additional health benefits for patients with T2DM and may result in cost savings for payers. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for people with depression and comorbid diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a Markov model informed by the COINCIDE randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for treating depression in patients with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease (CHD). SETTING: 36 primary care general practices in North West England. PARTICIPANTS: 387 participants completed baseline assessment (collaborative care: 191; usual care: 196) and full or partial 4-month follow-up data were captured for 350 (collaborative care: 170; usual care: 180). 62% of participants were male, 14% were non-white. Participants were aged ≥18 years, listed on a Quality and Outcomes Framework register for CHD and/or type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, with persistent depressive symptoms. Patients with psychosis or type I/II bipolar disorder, actively suicidal, in receipt of services for substance misuse, or already in receipt of psychological therapy for depression were excluded. INTERVENTION: Collaborative care consisted of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments, delivered over 3 months and case management by a practice nurse and a Psychological Well Being Practitioner. OUTCOME MEASURES: As planned, the primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). A Markov model was constructed to extrapolate the trial results from short-term to long-term (24 months). RESULTS: The mean cost per participant of collaborative care was £317 (95% CI 284 to 350). Over 24 months, it was estimated that collaborative care was associated with greater healthcare usage costs (net cost £674 (95% CI -30 953 to 38 853)) and QALYs (net QALY gain 0.04 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.54)) than usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £16 123, and a likelihood of being cost-effective of 0.54 (willingness to pay threshold of £20 000). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care is a potentially cost-effective long-term treatment for depression in patients with comorbid physical and mental illness. The estimated cost per QALY gained was below the threshold recommended by English decision-makers. Further, long-term primary research is needed to address uncertainty associated with estimates of cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80309252; Post-results.

Calculating when elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair improves survival for individual patients: development of the Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair aims to prevent premature death from AAA rupture. Elective repair is currently recommended when AAA diameter reaches 5.5 cm (men) and 5.0 cm (women). Applying population-based indications may not be appropriate for individual patient decisions, as the optimal indication is likely to differ between patients based on age and comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: To develop an Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid (ARDA) to indicate when elective AAA repair optimises survival for individual patients and to assess the cost-effectiveness and associated uncertainty of elective repair at the aneurysm diameter recommended by the ARDA compared with current practice. DATA SOURCES: The UK Vascular Governance North West and National Vascular Database provided individual patient data to develop predictive models for perioperative mortality and survival. Data from published literature were used to model AAA growth and risk of rupture. The cost-effectiveness analysis used data from published literature and from local and national databases. METHODS: A combination of systematic review methods and clinical registries were used to provide data to populate models and inform the structure of the ARDA. Discrete event simulation (DES) was used to model the patient journey from diagnosis to death and synthesised data were used to estimate patient outcomes and costs for elective repair at alternative aneurysm diameters. Eight patient clinical scenarios (vignettes) were used as exemplars. The DES structure was validated by clinical and statistical experts. The economic evaluation estimated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the NHS, social care provider and patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the data and the value for money of ARDA-based decisions. The ARDA outcome measures include perioperative mortality risk, annual risk of rupture, 1-, 5- and 10-year survival, postoperative long-term survival, median life expectancy and predicted time to current threshold for aneurysm repair. The primary economic measure was the ICER using the QALY as the measure of health benefit. RESULTS: The analysis demonstrated it is feasible to build and run a complex clinical decision aid using DES. The model results support current guidelines for most vignettes but suggest that earlier repair may be effective in younger, fitter patients and ongoing surveillance may be effective in elderly patients with comorbidities. The model adds information to support decisions for patients with aneurysms outside current indications. The economic evaluation suggests that using the ARDA compared with current guidelines could be cost-effective but there is a high level of uncertainty. LIMITATIONS: Lack of high-quality long-term data to populate all sections of the model meant that there is high uncertainty about the long-term clinical and economic consequences of repair. Modelling assumptions were necessary and the developed survival models require external validation. CONCLUSIONS: The ARDA provides detailed information on the potential consequences of AAA repair or a decision not to repair that may be helpful to vascular surgeons and their patients in reaching informed decisions. Further research is required to reduce uncertainty about key data, including reintervention following AAA repair, and assess the acceptability and feasibility of the ARDA for use in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.