European diabetes research and its funding, 2002-2013.

AIM: This study examined the outputs of research papers in diabetes from 31 European countries between 2002 and 2013, and their funding. METHODS: Diabetes research papers in the Web of Science were identified by means of a filter based on journals and title words. For 2009-2013 papers, the funders were coded to show their sector and nationality. RESULTS: Europe published 40 547 diabetes papers in the 12 years between 2002 and 2013. Denmark, Sweden and Finland published the most relative to their wealth, but the UK published the most absolutely despite an apparently low burden (as measured by disability-adjusted life years). The largest source of funding was government (30%), followed by the non-profit sector (18%) and industry (13%). The European Commission supported 2.7% of papers, but more in Latvia (33%) and Estonia (16%). Based on an estimated cost per paper of €260 000, the annual research expenditure in Europe was approximately €986 million in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The European diabetes burden in disability-adjusted life years increased by one third between 2002 and 2012, but its output of research papers has decreased from 44% to 36% of the world total. This decrease needs to be reviewed in the context of European non-communicable disease research policy.

Surrogate, friend or foe? The need for case studies of the use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses.

We comment on a recent article by Hawkins et al. presenting different analytic approaches for the inclusion of surrogate and final outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses. This methodological case study provides a timely and valuable contribution to build on the debate about the use of evidence based on surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment.

Combining tumour response and progression free survival as surrogate endpoints for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Progression free survival (PFS) and tumour response (TR) have been investigated as surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC), however their validity has been shown to be suboptimal. In recent years, meta-analytic methods allowing for use of multiple surrogate endpoints jointly have been proposed. Our aim was to assess if PFS and TR used jointly as surrogate endpoints to OS improve their predictive value. METHODS: Data were obtained from a systematic review of randomised controlled trials investigating effectiveness of pharmacological therapies in aCRC, including systemic chemotherapies, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapies and anti-angiogenic agents. Multivariate meta-analysis was used to model the association patterns between treatment effects on the surrogate endpoints (TR, PFS) and the final outcome (OS). RESULTS: Analysis of 33 trials reporting treatment effects on all three outcomes showed reasonably strong association between treatment effects on PFS and OS, however the association parameters were obtained with a large uncertainty. A weak surrogate relationship was noted between the treatment effects on TR and OS. Modelling the two surrogate endpoints, TR and PFS, jointly as predictors of treatment effect on OS gave no marked improvement to surrogate association patterns. Modest improvement in the precision of the predicted treatment effects on the final outcome was noted in studies investigating anti-angiogenic therapy, however it was likely due to chance. CONCLUSION: The joint use of two surrogate endpoints did not lead to marked improvement in the association between treatment effects on surrogate and final endpoints in advanced colorectal cancer.

Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nilotinib and dasatinib are now being considered as alternative treatments to imatinib as a first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). OBJECTIVE: This technology assessment reviews the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. DATA SOURCES: Databases [including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website] were searched from search end date of the last technology appraisal report on this topic in October 2002 to September 2011. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies; a review of surrogate relationships with survival; a review and critique of manufacturer submissions; and a model-based economic analysis. RESULTS: Two clinical trials (dasatinib vs imatinib and nilotinib vs imatinib) were included in the effectiveness review. Survival was not significantly different for dasatinib or nilotinib compared with imatinib with the 24-month follow-up data available. The rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were higher for patients receiving dasatinib than for those with imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 83% vs 72%, p < 0.001; MMR 46% vs 28%, p < 0.0001). The rates of CCyR and MMR were higher for patients receiving nilotinib than for those receiving imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 80% vs 65%, p < 0.001; MMR 44% vs 22%, p < 0.0001). An indirect comparison analysis showed no difference between dasatinib and nilotinib for CCyR or MMR rates for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR, odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.92; MMR, odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16). There is observational association evidence from imatinib studies supporting the use of CCyR and MMR at 12 months as surrogates for overall all-cause survival and progression-free survival in patients with CML in chronic phase. In the cost-effectiveness modelling scenario, analyses were provided to reflect the extensive structural uncertainty and different approaches to estimating OS. First-line dasatinib is predicted to provide very poor value for money compared with first-line imatinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of between £256,000 and £450,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conversely, first-line nilotinib provided favourable ICERs at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Immaturity of empirical trial data relative to life expectancy, forcing either reliance on surrogate relationships or cumulative survival/treatment duration assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: From the two trials available, dasatinib and nilotinib have a statistically significant advantage compared with imatinib as measured by MMR or CCyR. Taking into account the treatment pathways for patients with CML, i.e. assuming the use of second-line nilotinib, first-line nilotinib appears to be more cost-effective than first-line imatinib. Dasatinib was not cost-effective if decision thresholds of £20,000 per QALY or £30,000 per QALY were used, compared with imatinib and nilotinib. Uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis would be substantially reduced with better and more UK-specific data on the incidence and cost of stem cell transplantation in patients with chronic CML. FUNDING: The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.