-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening and prevention strategies, including rapid intrapartum testing, for prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcus (GBS) infection in the UK.
A decision model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies for GBS. A strategy of doing nothing was also considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out.
Two large UK based obstetric units.
Test accuracy data were obtained from a primary study of rapid tests at the onset of labour and risk factors from 1400 women.
Incremental health sector costs per case of early-onset GBS death avoided.
Compared with a strategy of do nothing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £32,000 per Early-Onset GBS Disease avoided and £427,000 per Early-Onset GBS Death avoided for the strategy of providing routine intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to all women without prior screening; Based on their current sensitivity, specificity and cost, screening using rapid tests was dominated by other more cost-effective strategies.
The most cost-effective strategy was shown to be the provision of routine intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to all women without prior screening but, given broader concerns relating to antibiotic use, this is unlikely to be acceptable. In its absence, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis directed by screening with enriched culture becomes cost-effective. The current strategy of risk-factor-based screening is not cost-effective compared with screening based on culture.
BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 12/2010; 117(13):1616-27. · 3.41 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence included four randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two comparing infliximab with placebo in patients not responsive to initial treatment with intravenous corticosteroids and one comparing ciclosporin with placebo. A fourth RCT compared ciclosporin with intravenous corticosteroids as the initial treatment after hospitalisation. The manufacturer's submission concluded that infliximab provides clinical benefit to patients with acute severe, steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis and is well tolerated; it also provides additional clinical benefits over ciclosporin, particularly avoidance of colectomy. A decision tree model was built to compare infliximab with strategies involving ciclosporin, standard care and surgery. After correcting a small number of errors in the model, the revised base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for infliximab compared with standard care was 20,000 pounds. However, sensitivity analyses revealed considerable uncertainty emanating from the weight of the patient, the timeframe considered and, most importantly, the colectomy rates used. When a more appropriate mix of trials were included in the estimation of colectomy rates, the ICER for infliximab rose to 48,000 pounds. The guidance issued by NICE on 31 October 2008 states that infliximab is recommended as an option for the treatment of acute exacerbations of severely active ulcerative colitis only in patients in whom ciclosporin is contraindicated or clinically inappropriate, based on a careful assessment of the risks and benefits of treatment in the individual patient; for people who do not meet this criterion, infliximab should only be used for the treatment of acute exacerbations of severely active ulcerative colitis in clinical trials.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 05/2010; 14 Suppl 1:9-15.
-
E Dormandy, S Bryan,
M C Gulliford,
T E Roberts,
A E Ades,
M Calnan,
K Atkin,
J Karnon,
P M Barton,
J Logan,
F Kavalier,
H J Harris,
T A Johnston,
E N Anionwu,
V Davis,
K Brown,
A Juarez-Garcia,
V Tsianakas,
T M Marteau
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility of offering universal antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia (SCT) screening in primary care when pregnancy is first confirmed and to model the cost-effectiveness of early screening in primary care versus standard care.
A population-based cohort study, cluster randomised trial and refinement of a published decision model.
Twenty-five general practices from two UK primary care trusts (PCTs) in two inner city boroughs with a high proportion of residents from minority ethnic groups.
Practices were considered eligible if they agreed to be randomised and they were able to provide anonymous data on all eligible pregnant women. Participants were at least 18 years old and consented to take part in the evaluation.
Practices were allocated to intervention, using minimisation and stratifying for PCT and number of partners at the practice, as follows: screening in primary care with parallel father testing (test offered to mother and father simultaneously; n = 8 clusters, 1010 participants); screening in primary care with sequential father testing (test offered to father only if mother identified as carrier; n = 9 clusters, 792 participants); and screening in secondary care with sequential father testing (standard care; n = 8 clusters, 619 participants).
Data on gestational age at pregnancy confirmation and screening date were collected from trial practices for 6 months before randomisation in the cohort phase. The primary outcome measure was timing of SCT screening, measured as the proportion of women screened before 70 days' (10 weeks') gestation. Other outcomes included: offer of screening, rates of informed choice and proportion of women who knew the carrier status of their baby's father by 77 days (11 weeks).
For 1441 eligible women in the cohort phase, the median [interquartile range (IQR)] gestational age at pregnancy confirmation was 7.6 weeks (6.0 to 10.7 weeks) and 74% presented in primary care before 10 weeks. The median gestational age at screening was 15.3 weeks (IQR 12.6 to 18.0 weeks). Only 4.4% were screened before 10 weeks. The median delay between pregnancy confirmation and screening was 6.9 weeks (4.7 to 9.3 weeks). In the intervention phase, 1708 pregnancies from 25 practices were assessed for the primary outcome measure. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 464 women who met eligibility criteria for the main analysis. The proportion of women screened by 10 weeks (70 days) was 9/441 (2%) in standard care, compared with 161/677 (24%) in primary care with parallel testing, and 167/590 (28%) in primary care with sequential testing. The proportion of women offered screening by 10 weeks (70 days) was 3/90 (3%) in standard care (note offer of test ascertained for questionnaire respondents only), compared with 321/677 (47%) in primary care with parallel testing, and 281/590 (48%) in primary care with sequential testing. The proportion of women screened by 26 weeks (182 days) was similar across the three groups: 324/441 (73%) in standard care, 571/677 (84%, 0.09) in primary care with parallel testing, and 481/590 (82%, 0.148) in primary care with sequential testing. The screening uptake of fathers was 51/677 (8%) in primary care with parallel testing, and 16/590 (3%) in primary care with sequential testing, and 13/441 (3%) in standard care. The predicted average total cost per pregnancy of offering antenatal SCT screening was estimated to be 13 pounds in standard care, 18.50 pounds in primary care with parallel testing, and 16.40 pounds in primary care with sequential testing. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 23 pounds in primary care with parallel testing and 12 pounds in primary care with sequential testing when compared with standard care. Women offered testing in primary care were as likely to make an informed choice as those offered screening by midwives later in pregnancy, but less than one-third of women overall made an informed choice about screening.
Offering antenatal SCT screening as part of pregnancy-confirmation consultations significantly increased the proportion of women screened before 10 weeks (70 days), from 2% in standard care to between 16% and 27% in primary care, but additional resources may be required to implement this. There was no evidence to support offering fathers screening at the same time as women.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00677850.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 04/2010; 14(20):1-160.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellent (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission indicated that the efficacy of infliximab (5 mg/kg) had been demonstrated in terms of higher response rates and a sustained response in health-related quality of life. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the manufacturer built a Markov model to compare infliximab with standard care. It estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between 25,044 pounds and 33,866 pounds depending on the strategy used. The ERG report generally agreed with the evidence on effectiveness of infliximab for subacute exacerbations of UC. However, there were several areas of uncertainty, of which the interpretation of the importance of the quality of life changes in the subacute situation and the assessment of the adequacy of the evidence of effectiveness of infliximab in the acute hospital-based situation were considered pre-eminent by the ERG. This challenged the estimates of cost-effectiveness offered and suggested that there should be a separate assessment of infliximab for acute exacerbations of moderately to severely active UC. The summary of the NICE guidance issued in April 2008 as a result of the STA states that: infliximab is not recommended for the treatment of subacute manifestations of moderately to severely active UC.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 10/2009; 13 Suppl 3:7-11.
-
J Daniels,
J Gray,
Helen M. Pattison,
T Roberts,
E. Edwards,
P Milner,
L. Spicer,
E. King,
R K Hills,
R Gray,
L. Buckley,
L. Magill,
N. Elliman,
B Kaambwa, S Bryan,
R Howard,
P Thompson,
K S Khan
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and optical immunoassay (OIA) rapid tests for maternal group B streptococcal (GBS) colonisation at labour.
DESIGN: A test accuracy study was used to determine the accuracy of rapid tests for GBS colonisation of women in labour. Acceptability of testing to participants was evaluated through a questionnaire administered after delivery, and acceptability to staff through focus groups. A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various screening strategies. SETTING: Two large obstetric units in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS: Women booked for delivery at the participating units other than those electing for a Caesarean delivery.
INTERVENTIONS: Vaginal and rectal swabs were obtained at the onset of labour and the results of vaginal and rectal PCR and OIA (index) tests were compared with the reference standard of enriched culture of combined vaginal and rectal swabs.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of the index tests, the relative accuracies of tests on vaginal and rectal swabs and whether test accuracy varied according to the presence or absence of maternal risk factors. RESULTS: PCR was significantly more accurate than OIA for the detection of maternal GBS colonisation. Combined vaginal or rectal swab index tests were more sensitive than either test considered individually [combined swab sensitivity for PCR 84% (95% CI 79-88%); vaginal swab 58% (52-64%); rectal swab 71% (66-76%)]. The highest sensitivity for PCR came at the cost of lower specificity [combined specificity 87% (95% CI 85-89%); vaginal swab 92% (90-94%); rectal swab 92% (90-93%)]. The sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests varied according to the presence or absence of maternal risk factors, but not consistently. PCR results were determinants of neonatal GBS colonisation, but maternal risk factors were not. Overall levels of acceptability for rapid testing amongst participants were high. Vaginal swabs were more acceptable than rectal swabs. South Asian women were least likely to have participated in the study and were less happy with the sampling procedure and with the prospect of rapid testing as part of routine care. Midwives were generally positive towards rapid testing but had concerns that it might lead to overtreatment and unnecessary interference in births. Modelling analysis revealed that the most cost-effective strategy was to provide routine intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) to all women without screening. Removing this strategy, which is unlikely to be acceptable to most women and midwives, resulted in screening, based on a culture test at 35-37 weeks' gestation, with the provision of antibiotics to all women who screened positive being most cost-effective, assuming that all women in premature labour would receive IAP. The results were sensitive to very small increases in costs and changes in other assumptions. Screening using a rapid test was not cost-effective based on its current sensitivity, specificity and cost.
CONCLUSIONS: Neither rapid test was sufficiently accurate to recommend it for routine use in clinical practice. IAP directed by screening with enriched culture at 35-37 weeks' gestation is likely to be the most acceptable cost-effective strategy, although it is premature to suggest the implementation of this strategy at present.
09/2009;
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine how we define good practice in sensitivity analysis in general and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) in particular, and to what extent it has been adhered to in the independent economic evaluations undertaken for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) over recent years; to establish what policy impact sensitivity analysis has in the context of NICE, and policy-makers' views on sensitivity analysis and uncertainty, and what use is made of sensitivity analysis in policy decision-making.
Three major electronic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were searched from inception to February 2008.
The meaning of 'good practice' in the broad area of sensitivity analysis was explored through a review of the literature. An audit was undertaken of the 15 most recent NICE multiple technology appraisal judgements and their related reports to assess how sensitivity analysis has been undertaken by independent academic teams for NICE. A review of the policy and guidance documents issued by NICE aimed to assess the policy impact of the sensitivity analysis and the PSA in particular. Qualitative interview data from NICE Technology Appraisal Committee members, collected as part of an earlier study, were also analysed to assess the value attached to the sensitivity analysis components of the economic analyses conducted for NICE.
All forms of sensitivity analysis, notably both deterministic and probabilistic approaches, have their supporters and their detractors. Practice in relation to univariate sensitivity analysis is highly variable, with considerable lack of clarity in relation to the methods used and the basis of the ranges employed. In relation to PSA, there is a high level of variability in the form of distribution used for similar parameters, and the justification for such choices is rarely given. Virtually all analyses failed to consider correlations within the PSA, and this is an area of concern. Uncertainty is considered explicitly in the process of arriving at a decision by the NICE Technology Appraisal Committee, and a correlation between high levels of uncertainty and negative decisions was indicated. The findings suggest considerable value in deterministic sensitivity analysis. Such analyses serve to highlight which model parameters are critical to driving a decision. Strong support was expressed for PSA, principally because it provides an indication of the parameter uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
The review and the policy impact assessment focused exclusively on documentary evidence, excluding other sources that might have revealed further insights on this issue. In seeking to address parameter uncertainty, both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses should be used. It is evident that some cost-effectiveness work, especially around the sensitivity analysis components, represents a challenge in making it accessible to those making decisions. This speaks to the training agenda for those sitting on such decision-making bodies, and to the importance of clear presentation of analyses by the academic community.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 07/2009; 13(29):iii, ix-xi, 1-61.
-
S Jowett, S Bryan,
L Poller,
A M H P VAN DEN Besselaar,
F J M VAN DER Meer,
G Palareti,
C Shiach,
A Tripodi,
M Keown,
S Ibrahim,
G Lowe,
M Moia,
A G Turpie,
J Jespersen
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Increased demand for oral anticoagulation has resulted in wider adoption of computer-assisted dosing in anticoagulant clinics. An economic evaluation has been performed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted dosing in comparison with manual dosing in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy.
A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted as part of the EAA randomized study of computer-assisted dosage vs. manual dosing. The 4.5-year multinational trial was conducted in 32 centres with 13 219 anticoagulation patients randomized to manual or computer-assisted dosage. The main outcome measures were total health care costs, clinical event rates and cost-saving per clinical event prevented by computer dosing compared with manual dosing.
Mean dosing costs per patient were lower (difference: euro47) for computer-assisted dosing, but with little difference in clinical event costs. Total overall costs were euro51 lower in the computer-assisted dosing arm. There were a larger number of clinical events in the manual dosing arm. The overall difference between trial arms was not significant (difference in clinical events, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.010-0.004) but there was a significant reduction in events with DVT/PE, suggesting computer-assisted dosage with the two study programs (dawn ac or parma 5) was at least as effective clinically as manual dosage. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that computer-assisted dosing is less costly than manual dosing.
Results indicate that computer-assisted dosage with the two programs (dawn ac and parma 5) is cheaper than manual dosage and is at least as effective clinically, indicating that investment in this technology represents value for money.
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 07/2009; 7(9):1482-90. · 5.73 Impact Factor
-
L Poller,
M Keown,
S Ibrahim,
G Lowe,
M Moia,
A G Turpie,
C Roberts,
A M H P van den Besselaar,
F J M van der Meer,
A Tripodi,
G Palareti,
C Shiach, S Bryan,
M Samama,
M Burgess-Wilson,
A Heagerty,
P Maccallum,
D Wright,
J Jespersen
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Increased demand for oral anticoagulants is overwhelming facilities worldwide, resulting in increasing use of computer assistance. A multicenter clinical endpoint study has been performed to compare the safety and effectiveness of computer-assisted dosage with dosage by experienced medical staff at the same centers.
A randomized study of dosage of two commercial computer-assisted dosage programs (PARMA 5 and DAWN AC) vs. manual dosage at 32 centers with an established interest in oral anticoagulation in 13 countries. The aim was to recruit a minimum of 16,000 patient-years randomized to medical staff or computer-assisted dosage. In total, 13,219 patients participated, 6503 patients being randomized to medical staff and 6716 to computer-assisted dosage. The safety and effectiveness of computer-assisted dosage were compared with those of medical staff dosage.
In total, 13,052 patients were recruited (18,617 patient-years). International Normalized Ratio (INR) tests numbered 193 890 with manual dosage and 193,424 with computer-assisted dosage. The number of clinical events with computer-assisted dosage was lower (P = 0.1), but in the 3209 patients with deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, they were reduced by 37 (24%, P = 0.001). Time in target INR range was significantly improved by computer assistance as compared with medical staff dosage at the majority of centers (P < 0.001).
The safety and effectiveness of computer-assisted dosage has been demonstrated using two different marketed programs in comparison with experienced medical staff dosage at the centers with established interest in anticoagulation. Significant prevention of clinical events in patients with deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism and the achievement of target INR in all clinical groups has been observed. The reliability and safety of other marketed computer-assisted dosage programs need to be established.
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 06/2008; 6(6):935-43. · 5.73 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the extent to which health economic information is used in health policy decision-making in the UK, and to consider factors associated with the utilisation of such research findings.
Major electronic databases were searched up to 2004.
A systematic review of existing reviews on the use of economic evaluations in policy decision-making, of health and non-health literature on the use of economic analyses in policy making and of studies identifying actual or perceived barriers to the use of economic evaluations was undertaken. Five UK case studies of committees from four local and one national organisation [the Technology Appraisal Committee of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)] were conducted. Local case studies were augmented by documentary analysis of new technology request forms and by workshop discussions with members of local decision-making committees.
The systematic review demonstrated few previous systematic reviews of evidence in the area. At the local level in the NHS, it was an exception for economic evaluation to inform technology coverage decisions. Local decision-making focused primarily on evidence of clinical benefit and cost implications. And whilst information on implementation was frequently requested, cost-effectiveness information was rarely accessed. A number of features of the decision-making environment appeared to militate against emphasis on cost-effectiveness analysis. Constraints on the capacity to generate, access and interpret information, led to a minor role for cost-effectiveness analysis in the local decision-making process. At the national policy level in the UK, economic analysis was found to be highly integrated into NICE's technology appraisal programme. Attitudes to economic evaluation varied between committee members with some significant disagreement and extraneous factors diluted the health economics analysis available to the committee. There was strong evidence of an ordinal approach to consideration of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information. Some interviewees considered the key role of a cost-effectiveness analysis to be the provision of a framework for decision-making. Interviewees indicated that NICE makes use of some form of cost-effectiveness threshold but expressed concern about its basis and its use in decision-making. Frustrations with the appraisal process were expressed in terms of the scope of the policy question being addressed. Committee members raised concerns about lack of understanding of the economic analysis but felt that a single measure of benefit, e.g. the quality-adjusted life-year, was useful in allowing comparison of disparate health interventions and in providing a benchmark for later decisions. The importance of ensuring that committee members understood the limitations of the analysis was highlighted for model-based analyses.
This study suggests that research is needed into structures, processes and mechanisms by which technology coverage decisions can and should be made in healthcare. Further development of 'resource centres' may be useful to provide independent published analyses in order to support local decision-makers. Improved methods of economic analyses and of their presentation, which take account of the concerns of their users, are needed. Finally, the findings point to the need for further assessment of the feasibility and value of a formal process of clarification of the objectives that we seek from investments in healthcare.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 05/2008; 12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Electronic databases were searched up to November 2003. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2003 were also reviewed.
Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a model-based economic evaluation were undertaken. Meta-analyses were undertaken for each COX-2 selective NSAID compared with placebo and non-selective NSAIDs. The model was designed to run in two forms: the 'full Assessment Group Model (AGM)', which includes an initial drug switching cycle, and the 'simpler AGM', where there is no initial cycle and no opportunity for the patient to switch NSAID.
Compared with non-selective NSAIDs, the COX-2 selective NSAIDs were found to be equally as efficacious as the non-selective NSAIDs (although meloxicam was found to be of inferior or equivalent efficacy) and also to be associated with significantly fewer clinical upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events (although relatively small numbers of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) and myocardial infarction (MI) events were reported across trials). Subgroup analyses of clinical and complicated UGI events and MI events in relation to aspirin use, steroid use, prior GI history and Helicobacter pylori status were based on relatively small numbers and were inconclusive. In the RCTs that included direct COX-2 comparisons, the drugs were equally tolerated and of equal efficacy. Trials were of insufficient size and duration to allow comparison of risk of clinical UGI events, complicated UGI events and MIs. One RCT compared COX-2 (celecoxib) with a non-selective NSAID combined with a gastroprotective agent (diclofenac combined with omeprazole); this included arthritis patients who had recently suffered a GI haemorrhage. Although no significant difference in clinical GI events was reported, the number of events was small and more such studies, where patients genuinely need NSAIDs, are required to confirm these data. A second trial showed that rofecoxib was associated with fewer diarrhoea events than a combination of diclofenac and misoprostol (Arthrotec). Previously published cost-effectiveness analyses indicated a wide of range of possible incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained estimates. Using the simpler AGM, with ibuprofen or diclofenac alone as the comparator, all of the COX-2 products are associated with higher costs (i.e. positive incremental costs) and small increases in effectiveness (i.e. positive incremental effectiveness), measured in terms of QALYs. The magnitude of the incremental costs and the incremental effects, and therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, vary considerably across all COX-2 selective NSAIDs. The base-case incremental cost per QALY results for COX-2 selective NSAIDs compared with diclofenac for the simpler model are: celecoxib (low dose) 68,400 pounds; celecoxib (high dose) 151,000 pounds; etodolac (branded) 42,400 pounds; etodolac (generic) 17,700 pounds; etoricoxib 31,300 pounds; lumiracoxib 70,400 pounds; meloxicam (low dose) 10,300 pounds; meloxicam (high dose) 17,800 pounds; rofecoxib 97,400 pounds; and valdecoxib 35,500 pounds. When the simpler AGM was run using ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) as the comparator, the results change substantially, with the COX-2 selective NSAIDs looking generally unattractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view (COX-2 selective NSAIDs were dominated by ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with PPI in most cases). This applies both to 'standard' and 'high-risk' arthritis patients defined in terms of previous GI ulcers. The full AGM produced results broadly in line with the simpler model.
The COX-2 selective NSAIDs examined were found to be similar to non-selective NSAIDs for the symptomatic relief of RA and OA and to provide superior GI tolerability (the majority of evidence is in patients with OA). Although COX-2 selective NSAIDs offer protection against serious GI events, the amount of evidence for this protective effect varied considerably across individual drugs. The volume of trial evidence with regard to cardiovascular safety also varied substantially between COX-2 selective NSAIDs. Increased risk of MI compared to non-selective NSAIDs was observed among those drugs with greater volume of evidence in terms of exposure in patient-years. Economic modelling shows a wide range of possible costs per QALY gained in patients with OA and RA. Costs per QALY also varied if individual drugs were used in 'standard' or 'high'-risk patients, the choice of non-selective NSAID comparator and whether that NSAID was combined with a PPI. With reduced costs of PPIs, future primary research needs to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 selective NSAIDs relative to non-selective NSAIDs with a PPI. Direct comparisons of different COX-2 selective NSAIDs, using equivalent doses, that compare GI and MI risk are needed. Pragmatic studies that include a wider range of people, including the older age groups with a greater burden of arthritis, are also necessary to inform clinical practice.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 05/2008; 12(11):1-278, iii. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
David A Fitzmaurice,
F D Richard Hobbs,
Sue Jowett,
Jonathon Mant,
Ellen T Murray,
Roger Holder,
J P Raftery, S Bryan,
Michael Davies,
Gregory Y H Lip,
T F Allan
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening.
Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm.
50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices.
14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices.
Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices.
Newly identified atrial fibrillation.
The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, -0.5% to 0.5%).
Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732 [controlled-trials.com].
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 09/2007; 335(7616):383.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This report reviews the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, agents that inhibit tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), when used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults.
Electronic databases were searched up to February 2005.
Systematic reviews of the literature on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were undertaken and industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were reviewed. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were also undertaken for each agent. The Birmingham Rheumatoid Arthritis Model (BRAM), a simulation model, was further developed and used to produce an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis.
Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), most of high quality, were included. The only head-to-head comparisons were against methotrexate. For patients with short disease duration (<or=3 years) who were naïve to methotrexate, adalimumab was marginally less and etanercept was marginally more effective than methotrexate in reducing symptoms of RA. Etanercept was better tolerated than methotrexate. Both adalimumab and etanercept were more effective than methotrexate in slowing radiographic joint damage. Etanercept was also marginally more effective and better tolerated than methotrexate in patients with longer disease durations who had not failed methotrexate treatment. Infliximab is only licensed for use with methotrexate. All three agents, either alone (where so licensed) or in combination with ongoing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), were effective in reducing the symptoms and signs of RA in patients with established disease. At the licensed dose, the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) (95% CI) required to produce an American College for Rheumatology (ACR) response compared with placebo were: ACR20: adalimumab 3.6 (3.1 to 4.2), etanercept 2.1 (1.9 to 2.4), infliximab 3.2 (2.7 to 4.0); ACR50: adalimumab 4.2 (3.7 to 5.0), etanercept 3.1 (2.7 to 3.6), infliximab 5.0 (3.8 to 6.7); and ACR70: adalimumab 7.7 (5.9 to 11.1), etanercept 7.7 (6.3 to 10.0), infliximab 11.1 (7.7 to 20.0). In patients who were naïve to methotrexate, or who had not previously failed methotrexate treatment, a TNF inhibitor combined with methotrexate was significantly more effective than methotrexate alone. Infliximab combined with methotrexate had an increased risk of serious infections. All ten published economic evaluations met standard criteria for quality, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from being within established thresholds to being very high because of varying assumptions and parameters. All three sponsors who submitted economic models made assumptions favourable to their product. BRAM incorporates improvements in quality of life and mortality, but assumes no effect of TNF inhibitors on joint replacement. For use in accordance with current NICE guidance as the third DMARD in a sequence of DMARDs, the base-case ICER was around pound30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in early RA and pound50,000 per QALY in late RA. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to the estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on TNF inhibitors and the effectiveness of DMARDs, but not to changes in mortality ratios per unit HAQ. TNF inhibitors are most cost-effective when used last. The ICER for etanercept used last is pound24,000 per QALY, substantially lower than for adalimumab ( pound30,000 per QALY) or infliximab ( pound38,000 per QALY). First line use as monotherapy generates ICERs around pound50,000 per QALY for adalimumab and etanercept. Using the combination of methotrexate and a TNF inhibitor as first line treatment generates much higher ICERs, as it precludes subsequent use of methotrexate, which is cheap. The ICERs for sequential use are of the same order as using the TNF inhibitor alone.
Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab are effective treatments compared with placebo for RA patients who are not well controlled by conventional DMARDs, improving control of symptoms, improving physical function, and slowing radiographic changes in joints. The combination of a TNF inhibitor with methotrexate was more effective than methotrexate alone in early RA, although the clinical relevance of this additional benefit is yet to be established, particularly in view of the well-established effectiveness of MTX alone. An increased risk of serious infection cannot be ruled out for the combination of methotrexate with adalimumab or infliximab. The results of the economic evaluation based on BRAM are consistent with the observations from the review of clinical effectiveness, including the ranking of treatments. TNF inhibitors are most cost-effective when used as last active therapy. In this analysis, other things being equal, etanercept may be the TNF inhibitor of choice, although this may also depend on patient preference as to route of administration. The next most cost-effective use of TNF inhibitors is third line, as recommended in the 2002 NICE guidance. Direct comparative RCTs of TNF inhibitors against each other and against other DMARDs, and sequential use in patients who have failed a previous TNF inhibitor, are needed. Longer term studies of the quality of life in patients with RA and the impact of DMARDs on this are needed, as are longer studies that directly assess effects on joint replacement, other morbidity and mortality.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 12/2006; 10(42):iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1-229. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review systematically and critically, evidence used to derive estimates of costs and cost effectiveness of chlamydia screening.
Systematic review. A search of 11 electronic bibliographic databases from the earliest date available to August 2004 using keywords including chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, economic evaluation, and cost. We included studies of chlamydia screening in males and/or females over 14 years, including studies of diagnostic tests, contact tracing, and treatment as part of a screening programme. Outcomes included cases of chlamydia identified and major outcomes averted. We assessed methodological quality and the modelling approach used.
Of 713 identified papers we included 57 formal economic evaluations and two cost studies. Most studies found chlamydia screening to be cost effective, partner notification to be an effective adjunct, and testing with nucleic acid amplification tests, and treatment with azithromycin to be cost effective. Methodological problems limited the validity of these findings: most studies used static models that are inappropriate for infectious diseases; restricted outcomes were used as a basis for policy recommendations; and high estimates of the probability of chlamydia associated complications might have overestimated cost effectiveness. Two high quality dynamic modelling studies found opportunistic screening to be cost effective but poor reporting or uncertainty about complication rates make interpretation difficult.
The inappropriate use of static models to study interventions to prevent a communicable disease means that uncertainty remains about whether chlamydia screening programmes are cost effective or not. The results of this review can be used by health service managers in the allocation of resources, and health economists and other researchers who are considering further research in this area.
Sexually Transmitted Infections 07/2006; 82(3):193-200; discussion 201. · 2.85 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for epilepsy in children: gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate and vigabatrin.
Electronic databases. Drug company submissions.
For the systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were also undertaken. A decision-analytic model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the newer agents in children with partial seizures, the only condition where there were sufficient trial data to inform a model.
The quality of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) data was generally poor. For each of the epilepsy subtypes considered in RCTs identified for this review (partial epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, infantile spasms, absence epilepsy and benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes), there is some evidence from placebo-controlled trials that the newer agents tested are of some value in the treatment of these conditions. Where active controls have been used, the limited evidence available does not indicate a difference in effectiveness between newer and older drugs. The data are not sufficient to inform a prescribing strategy for any of the newer agents in any of these conditions. In particular, there is no clinical evidence to suggest that the newer agents should be considered as a first-choice treatment in any form of epilepsy in children. Annual drug costs of the newer agents ranges from around 400 pound to 1200 pound, depending on age and concomitant medications. An AED that is ineffective or has intolerable side-effects will only be used for a short period of time, and many patients achieving seizure freedom will successfully withdraw from drug treatment without relapsing. The results of the decision-analytic model do not suggest that the use of the newer agents in any of the scenarios considered is clearly cost-effective but, similarly, do not indicate that they are clearly not cost-effective.
The prognosis for children diagnosed with epilepsy is generally good, with a large proportion responding well to the first treatment given. A substantial proportion, however, will not respond well to treatment, and for these patients the clinical goal is to find an optimal balance between the benefits and side-effects of any treatment given. For the newly, or recently, diagnosed population, the key question for the newer drugs is how soon they should be tried. The cost-effectiveness of using these agents early, in place of one of the older agents, will depend on the effectiveness and tolerability of these agents compared with the older agents; the evidence from the available trial data so far suggests that the newer agents are no more effective but may be somewhat better tolerated than the older agents, and so the cost-effectiveness for early use will depend on the trade-off between effectiveness and tolerability, both in terms of overall (long-term) treatment retention and overall utility associated with effects on seizure rate and side-effects. There are insufficient data available to estimate accurately the nature of this trade off either in terms of long-term treatment retention or utility. Better information is required from RCTs before any rational evidence-based prescribing strategy could be developed. Ideally, RCTs should be conducted from a 'public health' perspective, making relevant comparisons and incorporating outcomes of interest to clinicians and patients, with sufficiently long-term follow-up to determine reliably the clinical utility of different treatments, particularly with respect to treatment retention and the balance between effectiveness and tolerability. RCTs should mirror clinical practice with respect to diagnosis, focusing on defined syndromes or, where no syndrome is identified, on groups defined by specific seizure type(s) and aetiology. Epilepsy in children is a complex disease, with a variety of distinct syndromes and many alternative treatment options and outcomes. Diagnosis-specific decision-analytic models are required; further research may be required to inform parameter values adequately with respect to epidemiology and clinical practice.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 04/2006; 10(7):iii, ix-118. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the most cost-effective method of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in the population aged 65 years and over, as well as its prevalence and incidence in this age group. Also to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of different methods of recording and interpreting the electrocardiogram (ECG) within a screening programme.
Multicentred randomised controlled trial. Purposefully selected general practices were randomly allocated to 25 intervention practices and 25 control practices.
Fifty primary care centres across the West Midlands, UK.
Patients aged 65 years and over.
GPs and practice nurses in the intervention practices received education on the importance of AF detection and ECG interpretation. Patients in the intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic (n = 5000) or opportunistic screening (n = 5000). Prospective identification of pre-existing risk factors for AF within the screened population enabled comparison between targeted screening of people at higher risk of AF and total population screening.
AF detection rates in systematically screened and opportunistically screened populations in the intervention practices were compared with AF detection rate in 5000 patients in the control practices. The screening period was 12 months.
Baseline prevalence of AF was 7.2%, with a higher prevalence in males (7.8%) and patients aged 75 years and over (10.3%). The control population demonstrated higher baseline prevalence (7.9%) than either the systematic (6.9%) or opportunistic (6.9%) intervention population. In the control population 47 new cases were detected (incidence 1.04% per year). In the opportunistic arm 243 patients without a baseline diagnosis of AF were found to have an irregular pulse, with 177 having an ECG, yielding 31 new cases (incidence 0.69% per year). A further 44 cases were detected outside the screening programme (overall incidence 1.64% per year). In the systematic arm 2357 patients had an ECG yielding 52 new cases (incidence 1.1% per year). Of these, 31 were detected by targeted screening and a further 21 by total population screening. A further 22 cases were detected outside the screening programme (overall incidence 1.62% per year). In terms of ECG interpretation, computerised decision support software (CDSS) gave a sensitivity of 87.3%, a specificity of 99.1% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 89.5% compared with the gold standard (cardiologist reporting). GPs and practice nurses performed less well. The only difference in performance between intervention populations and controls was that practice nurses from the control arm performed less well than with intervention practice nurses on interpretation of limb-lead (PPV 38.8% versus 20.8%) and single-lead (PPV 37.7% versus 24.0%) ECGs. The within-trial economic evaluation results showed the lowest incremental cost to be for the opportunistic arm, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 337 pounds Sterling for each additional case detected compared to the control arm. Opportunistic screening dominated both more intensive screening strategies. Model-based analyses showed small differences in cost and quality-adjusted life-years for different methods and intensities of screening, but annual opportunistic screening resulted in the lowest number of ischaemic strokes and greatest proportion of cases of AF diagnosed. Probabilistic sensitivity results indicated that there was a probability of approximately 60% that screening from the age of 65 years was cost-effective in both men and women.
The results of the study indicated that in terms of a screening programme for atrial fibrillation in patients 65 and over, the only strategy that improved on routine practice was opportunistic screening, model-based analyses indicated that there was a probability of approximately 60% of annual opportunistic screening being cost effective. It is suggested that the following topics are worthy of further investigation: the effect of the implementation of a screening programme for AF on the uptake and maintenance of anticoagulation in patients aged 65 years and over; an evaluation of the role of CDSS in the diagnosis of cardiac arrythmias; the best method for routinely detecting paroxysmal AF; ways of improving healthcare professionals' performance in ECG interpretation; development of a robust economic model to incorporate data on new therapeutic agents for use as thromboprophylactic agents for patients with AF, and an evaluation of the relative risk of stroke for patients with incident as opposed to prevalent AF.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 11/2005; 9(40):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-74. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess whether blood pressure control in primary care could be improved with the use of patient held targets and self monitoring in a practice setting, and to assess the impact of these on health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences, and costs.
Randomised controlled trial.
Eight general practices in south Birmingham.
441 people receiving treatment in primary care for hypertension but not controlled below the target of < 140/85 mm Hg.
Patients in the intervention group received treatment targets along with facilities to measure their own blood pressure at their general practice; they were also asked to visit their general practitioner or practice nurse if their blood pressure was repeatedly above the target level. Patients in the control group received usual care (blood pressure monitoring by their practice).
Primary outcome: change in systolic blood pressure at six months and one year in both intervention and control groups. Secondary outcomes: change in health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences of method of blood pressure monitoring, and costs.
400 (91%) patients attended follow up at one year. Systolic blood pressure in the intervention group had significantly reduced after six months (mean difference 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 0.8 mm Hg to 7.9 mm Hg)) but not after one year (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg (- 1.2 mm Hg to 6.6 mm Hg)). No overall difference was found in diastolic blood pressure, anxiety, health behaviours, or number of prescribed drugs. Patients who self monitored lost more weight than controls (as evidenced by a drop in body mass index), rated self monitoring above monitoring by a doctor or nurse, and consulted less often. Overall, self monitoring did not cost significantly more than usual care (251 pounds sterling (437 dollars; 364 euros) (95% confidence interval 233 pounds sterling to 275 pounds sterling) versus 240 pounds sterling (217 pounds sterling to 263 pounds sterling).
Practice based self monitoring resulted in small but significant improvements of blood pressure at six months, which were not sustained after a year. Self monitoring was well received by patients, anxiety did not increase, and there was no appreciable additional cost. Practice based self monitoring is feasible and results in blood pressure control that is similar to that in usual care.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 09/2005; 331(7515):493.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding automated image analysis to cervical screening programmes.
Searching of all major electronic databases to the end of 2000 was supplemented by a detailed survey for unpublished UK literature.
Four systematic reviews were conducted according to recognised guidance. The review of 'clinical effectiveness' included studies assessing reproducibility and impact on health outcomes and processes in addition to evaluations of test accuracy. A discrete event simulation model was developed, although the economic evaluation ultimately relied on a cost-minimisation analysis.
The predominant finding from the systematic reviews was the very limited amount of rigorous primary research. None of the included studies refers to the only commercially available automated image analysis device in 2002, the AutoPap Guided Screening (GS) System. The results of the included studies were debatably most compatible with automated image analysis being equivalent in test performance to manual screening. Concerning process, there was evidence that automation does lead to reductions in average slide processing times. In the PRISMATIC trial this was reduced from 10.4 to 3.9 minutes, a statistically significant and practically important difference. The economic evaluation tentatively suggested that the AutoPap GS System may be efficient. The key proviso is that credible data become available to support that the AutoPap GS System has test performance and processing times equivalent to those obtained for PAPNET.
The available evidence is still insufficient to recommend implementation of automated image analysis systems. The priority for action remains further research, particularly the 'clinical effectiveness' of the AutoPap GS System. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of introducing automation alongside other approaches is also a priority.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 04/2005; 9(13):1-207, iii. · 4.26 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are measurement difficulties associated with the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in older people with dementia. The use of proxies is a commonly employed approach to overcome such problems. The research reported in this paper sought to identify, specifically for the EuroQol EQ-5D HRQL instrument, whether construct validity is greater for 'family caregivers' or 'clinicians' as two alternative sources of proxy information for patients with a diagnosis of dementia. This involved the exploration of the strength of the associations between clinical measures of illness severity and EQ-5D data. The data appear to reveal a pattern suggesting that the viewpoint of the proxy (i.e., clinician or family caregiver) is important. The findings suggest that the data provided by clinicians (when compared to data from carers) had higher construct validity for the more observable dimensions of the EQ-5D instrument (i.e., 'mobility' and 'self-care'). Conversely, the data from family carers had higher construct validity for the less observable dimensions (i.e., 'usual activities' and 'anxiety/depression'). Previous research on proxy provision of HRQL data has tended to focus on trying to identify a single proxy. The results of this study suggest that using carefully matched sets of measures and assessment perspectives may produce more valid EQ-5D health state descriptions.
Quality of Life Research 03/2005; 14(1):107-18. · 2.30 Impact Factor
-
Sexually Transmitted Infections 09/2004; 80(4):324-5. · 2.85 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To address the structural issues relating to mortality and quality of life (QoL) effects and to identify data on the general pattern of QoL of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients through a restructured and enhanced version of the Birmingham Preliminary Model (BPM).
Electronic databases and a postal survey of current UK rheumatological practice.
The focus for this report was to evaluate two new drugs, etanercept and infliximab [antibodies against tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNFs)], for use in the treatment of RA using the Birmingham Rheumatoid Arthritis Model (BRAM). Having carried out a rapid systematic review of physician surveys of current disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) usage patterns in adult patients with RA and a postal survey of consultant rheumatologists working in the UK, the drug sequences were then identified for the model. A series of analyses were then run using the model. The issue of specifying the correct comparison in the analysis being undertaken was investigated using two separate analyses: the situation of comparing anti-TNFs with placebo, and the comparison of a sequence using anti-TNFs with a sequence that represents current practice in the UK.
Results from the survey of rheumatologists highlighted the fact that RA has different manifestations and responds to different agents in different patients, all of which makes any summary of practice difficult to achieve and open to the criticism of being an oversimplification. However, the findings generally agree with other surveys and trends observed, such as the increasing acceptance of methotrexate as first line drug of choice in patients with RA, especially if the disease is of an aggressive nature. The newer anti-TNF agents have also begun to be incorporated into use. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios resulting from the use of an inappropriate comparator of placebo were consistently lower than in the base case where appropriate comparator drugs sequences are used. The focus of the BRAM on a drug sequence helped to avoid the incremental cost-effectiveness of new treatments appearing lower than they really are when inappropriate comparators are used. To test the effect on the analysis results of using the disease-modifying antirheumatic sequence that represents current UK practice, the BRAM was run for the strategies representing current UK practice. The results were not very different from the base-case results.
The main achievement of this work was to bring about a more realistic modelling of real-life clinical pathways and events, as it has developed from the BPM to the BRAM. This has been brought about by overcoming structural and data limitations. In addition, the modelling approach reflected in the BRAM is applicable to other chronic conditions, especially those where a sequential approach to therapeutic options exists. The model has been successfully restructured so that different sequences of treatment can readily be considered, including the sequence that best represents current clinical practice in the UK. In addition, the flexibility inherent in using a modelling approach to consider these health policy questions has been demonstrated. One of the key uncertainties that can now be explored concerns the impact of new drugs on disease progression. Current evidence on this is weak, but should new agents demonstrate such a benefit then the BRAM may be a suitable vehicle through which to investigate the costs and full effects. Inevitably, there remain problems and limitations with the BRAM, but these are almost entirely data limitations. As data on these issues become available the BRAM provides a convenient tool through which reanalysis might be undertaken.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 04/2004; 8(11):iii, 1-91. · 4.26 Impact Factor
