1
|
Thomson S, Ainsworth G, Selvanathan S, Brown S, Croft J, Kelly R, Mujica-Mota R, Rousseau N, Higham R, Stocken D. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial). Br J Neurosurg 2024; 38:141-148. [PMID: 37807634 DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2023.2267119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 10/01/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Thomson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Senthil Selvanathan
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, UK
| | - Sarah Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, UK
| | - Julie Croft
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, UK
| | - Rachel Kelly
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, UK
| | | | | | - Ruchi Higham
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Thomson S, Ainsworth G, Selvanathan S, Kelly R, Collier H, Mujica-Mota R, Talbot R, Brown ST, Croft J, Rousseau N, Higham R, Al-Tamimi Y, Buxton N, Carleton-Bland N, Gledhill M, Halstead V, Hutchinson P, Meacock J, Mukerji N, Pal D, Vargas-Palacios A, Prasad A, Wilby M, Stocken D. Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-228. [PMID: 37929307 PMCID: PMC10641711 DOI: 10.3310/otoh7720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting National Health Service trusts. Participants Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Thomson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Gemma Ainsworth
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Rachel Kelly
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Howard Collier
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Rebecca Talbot
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sarah Tess Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Julie Croft
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ruchi Higham
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Yahia Al-Tamimi
- Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Neil Buxton
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Martin Gledhill
- Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Peter Hutchinson
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - James Meacock
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Nitin Mukerji
- Department of Neurosurgery, The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Debasish Pal
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Anantharaju Prasad
- Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | - Martin Wilby
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Deborah Stocken
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Armitage KF, Porter CE, Ahmed S, Cook J, Boards J, Bongard E, Butler CC, Corfield K, Davoudianfar M, Galal U, Howard P, Mujica-Mota R, Saman R, Santillo M, Savic S, Shinkins B, Tonkin-Crine S, Wanat M, West RM, Yu LM, Pavitt S, Sandoe JAT. Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e072253. [PMID: 37666558 PMCID: PMC10481831 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/07/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN20579216.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelsey Fiona Armitage
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Catherine E Porter
- Dental Translational and Clinical Research Unit, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Shadia Ahmed
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Johanna Cook
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jenny Boards
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Emily Bongard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Christopher C Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kate Corfield
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mina Davoudianfar
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ushma Galal
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Philip Howard
- School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- NHS England, Leeds, UK
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Razan Saman
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Marta Santillo
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sinisa Savic
- Clinical Immunology and Allergy, University of Leeds Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, Leeds, UK
| | - Bethany Shinkins
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Marta Wanat
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Robert M West
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ly-Mee Yu
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sue Pavitt
- Dental Translational and Clinical Research Unit, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Jonathan A T Sandoe
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Price S, Landa P, Mujica-Mota R, Hamilton W, Spencer A. Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients' Primary Care Contacts and Costs. Value Health 2022:S1098-3015(22)02095-2. [PMID: 35953398 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Revised: 06/23/2022] [Accepted: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs. METHODS Participants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls ("old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]") or "new NICE" if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as "old NICE." For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden. RESULTS Median contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to -£28.05, -£50.43 to -£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision. CONCLUSIONS The main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Price
- Discovery Unit, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, England, UK.
| | - Paolo Landa
- Département d'opérations et systèmes de decision, Faculté des sciences de l'administration, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada; Centre Hospitaliere Universitaire (CHU) de Québec - Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, UK
| | - Willie Hamilton
- Discovery Unit, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, England, UK
| | - Anne Spencer
- Health Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tassinari CJ, Higham R, Smith IL, Arnold S, Mujica-Mota R, Metcalfe A, Simpson H, Murray D, McGonagle DG, Sharma H, Hamilton TW, Ellard DR, Fernandez C, Reynolds C, Harwood P, Croft J, Stocken DD, Pandit H. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e062721. [PMID: 35772819 PMCID: PMC9247693 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cerys Joyce Tassinari
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ruchi Higham
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Isabelle Louise Smith
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Susanne Arnold
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Andrew Metcalfe
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
- Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Hamish Simpson
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - David Murray
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - Dennis G McGonagle
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK
| | - Hemant Sharma
- Department of Orthopaedics, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, Kingston upon Hull, UK
| | - Thomas William Hamilton
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - David R Ellard
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
| | - Catherine Fernandez
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Reynolds
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Paul Harwood
- University of Leeds, Leeds Institute of Medical Research, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Julie Croft
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Deborah D Stocken
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Hemant Pandit
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Morrish N, Mujica-Mota R, Medina-Lara A. Understanding the effect of loneliness on unemployment: propensity score matching. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:740. [PMID: 35477427 PMCID: PMC9045886 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13107-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Loneliness and unemployment are each detrimental to health and well-being. Recent evidence suggests a potential bidirectional relationship between loneliness and unemployment in working age individuals. As most existing research focuses on the outcomes of unemployment, this paper seeks to understand the impact of loneliness on unemployment, potential interaction with physical health, and assess bidirectionality in the working age population. Methods This study utilised data from waves 9 (2017–19) and 10 (2018–2020) of the Understanding Society UK Household Longitudinal Study. Nearest-neighbour probit propensity score matching with at least one match was used to infer causality by mimicking randomisation. Analysis was conducted in three steps: propensity score estimation; matching; and stratification. Propensity scores were estimated controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, education, marital status, household composition, number of own children in household and region. Findings were confirmed in panel data random effect models, and heterogeneous treatment effects assessed by the matching-smoothing method. Results Experience of loneliness in at least one wave increased the probability of being unemployed in wave 10 by 17.5 [95%CI: 14.8, 20.2] percentage points. Subgroup analysis revealed a greater effect from sustained than transitory loneliness. Further exploratory analysis identified a positive average treatment effect, of smaller magnitude, for unemployment on loneliness suggesting bidirectionality in the relationship. The impact of loneliness on unemployment was further exacerbated by interaction with physical health. Conclusions This is the first study to directly consider the potentially bidirectional relationship between loneliness and unemployment through analysis of longitudinal data from a representative sample of the working age population. Findings reinforce the need for greater recognition of wider societal impacts of loneliness. Given the persisting and potentially scarring effects of both loneliness and unemployment on health and the economy, prevention of both experiences is key. Decreased loneliness could mitigate unemployment, and employment abate loneliness, which may in turn relate positively to other factors including health and quality of life. Thus, particular attention should be paid to loneliness with additional support from employers and government to improve health and well-being. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13107-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Morrish
- Health Economics Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| | - R Mujica-Mota
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - A Medina-Lara
- Health Economics Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Clegg A, Bandeen-Roche K, Farrin A, Forster A, Gill TM, Gladman J, Kerse N, Lindley R, McManus RJ, Melis R, Mujica-Mota R, Raina P, Rockwood K, Teh R, van der Windt D, Witham M. New horizons in evidence-based care for older people: individual participant data meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2022; 51:afac090. [PMID: 35460409 PMCID: PMC9034697 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afac090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2021] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Evidence-based decisions on clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions are ideally informed by meta-analyses of intervention trial data. However, when undertaken, such meta-analyses in ageing research have typically been conducted using standard methods whereby summary (aggregate) data are extracted from published trial reports. Although meta-analysis of aggregate data can provide useful insights into the average effect of interventions within a selected trial population, it has limitations regarding robust conclusions on which subgroups of people stand to gain the greatest benefit from an intervention or are at risk of experiencing harm. Future evidence synthesis using individual participant data from ageing research trials for meta-analysis could transform understanding of the effectiveness of interventions for older people, supporting evidence-based and sustainable commissioning. A major advantage of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it enables examination of characteristics that predict treatment effects, such as frailty, disability, cognitive impairment, ethnicity, gender and other wider determinants of health. Key challenges of IPDMA relate to the complexity and resources needed for obtaining, managing and preparing datasets, requiring a meticulous approach involving experienced researchers, frequently with expertise in designing and analysing clinical trials. In anticipation of future IPDMA work in ageing research, we are establishing an international Ageing Research Trialists collective, to bring together trialists with a common focus on transforming care for older people as a shared ambition across nations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Clegg
- Academic Unit for Ageing & Stroke Research, University of Leeds, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Karen Bandeen-Roche
- Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Amanda Farrin
- Leeds Institute for Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Anne Forster
- Academic Unit for Ageing & Stroke Research, University of Leeds, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Thomas M Gill
- Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | | | - Ngaire Kerse
- Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland School of Population Health, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Richard Lindley
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Richard J McManus
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Parminder Raina
- Department of Health Evidence and Impact & McMaster Institute for Research on Aging, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Kenneth Rockwood
- Division of Geriatric Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Ruth Teh
- Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland School of Population Health, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Miles Witham
- AGE Research Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
White BE, Mujica-Mota R, Snowsill T, Gamper EM, Srirajaskanthan R, Ramage JK. Evaluating cost-effectiveness in the management of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2021; 22:647-663. [PMID: 33155118 PMCID: PMC8346405 DOI: 10.1007/s11154-020-09608-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
The rapid evolution of novel, costly therapies for neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) warrants formal high-quality cost-effectiveness evaluation. Costs of individual investigations and therapies are high; and examples are presented. We aimed to review the last ten years of standalone health economic evaluations in NEN. Comparing to published standards, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database were searched for health economic evaluations (HEEs) in NEN published between 2010 and October 2019. Of 12 economic evaluations, 11 considered exclusively pharmacological treatment (3 studies of SSAs, 7 studies of sunitinib, everolimus and/or 177Lu-DOTATATE and 1 study of telotristat ethyl) and 1 compared surgery with intraarterial therapy. 7 studies of pharmacological treatment had placebo or best supportive care as the only comparator. There remains a paucity of economic evaluations in NEN with the majority industry funded. Most HEEs reviewed did not meet published health economic criteria used to assess quality. Lack of cost data collected from patient populations remains a significant factor in HEEs where clinical expert opinion is still often substituted. Further research utilizing high-quality effectiveness data and rigorous applied health economic analysis is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B E White
- Department of Gastroenterology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hampshire, UK
- Kings Health Partners Neuroendocrine Tumour Centre of Excellence, London, UK
| | - R Mujica-Mota
- Department of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - T Snowsill
- Department of Health Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - E M Gamper
- Innsbruck Institute of Patient-centered Outcome Research (IIPCOR), Innsbruck, Austria
| | - R Srirajaskanthan
- Kings Health Partners Neuroendocrine Tumour Centre of Excellence, London, UK
| | - J K Ramage
- Department of Gastroenterology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hampshire, UK.
- Kings Health Partners Neuroendocrine Tumour Centre of Excellence, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Price S, Spencer A, Zhang X, Ball S, Lyratzopoulos G, Mujica-Mota R, Stapley S, Ukoumunne OC, Hamilton W. Trends in time to cancer diagnosis around the period of changing national guidance on referral of symptomatic patients: A serial cross-sectional study using UK electronic healthcare records from 2006-17. Cancer Epidemiol 2020; 69:101805. [PMID: 32919226 PMCID: PMC7480981 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101805] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2020] [Revised: 07/24/2020] [Accepted: 08/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND UK primary-care referral guidance describes the signs, symptoms, and test results ("features") of undiagnosed cancer. Guidance revision in 2015 liberalised investigation by introducing more low-risk features. We studied adults with cancer whose features were in the 2005 guidance ("Old-NICE") or were introduced in the revision ("New-NICE"). We compared time to diagnosis between the groups, and its trend over 2006-2017. METHODS Clinical Practice Research Datalink records were analysed for adults with incident myeloma, breast, bladder, colorectal, lung, oesophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, stomach or uterine cancers in 1/1/2006-31/12/2017. Cancer-specific features in the year before diagnosis were used to create New-NICE and Old-NICE groups. Diagnostic interval was time between the index feature and diagnosis. Semiparametric varying-coefficient analyses compared diagnostic intervals between New-NICE and Old-NICE groups over 1/1/2006-31/12/2017. RESULTS Over all cancers (N = 83,935), median (interquartile range) Old-NICE diagnostic interval rose over 2006-2017, from 51 (20-132) to 64 (30-148) days, with increases in breast (15 vs 25 days), lung (103 vs 135 days), ovarian (65·5 vs 100 days), prostate (80 vs 93 days) and stomach (72·5 vs 102 days) cancers. Median New-NICE values were consistently longer (99, 40-212 in 2006 vs 103, 42-236 days in 2017) than Old-NICE values over all cancers. After guidance revision, New-NICE diagnostic intervals became shorter than Old-NICE values for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS Despite improvements for colorectal cancer, scope remains to reduce diagnostic intervals for most cancers. Liberalised investigation requires protecting and enhancing cancer-diagnostic services to avoid their becoming a rate-limiting step in the diagnostic pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Price
- University of Exeter Medical School, Room 1.20 College House, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, EX1 2LU, UK.
| | - Anne Spencer
- Health Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| | - Xiaohui Zhang
- University of Exeter Business School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| | - Susan Ball
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South West Peninsula, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| | | | | | - Sal Stapley
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| | - Obioha C Ukoumunne
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South West Peninsula, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| | - Willie Hamilton
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
White BE, Druce MR, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Srirajaskanthan R, Gamper EM, Gray D, Mujica-Mota R, Ramage JK. Health-related quality of life in neuroendocrine neoplasia: a critical review. Endocr Relat Cancer 2020; 27:R267-R280. [PMID: 32449694 DOI: 10.1530/erc-20-0066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Accepted: 05/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) is increasing, as is use of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement in clinical trials. Following development of validated questionnaires, HRQoL is widely used to assess outcomes. This review is intended for healthcare professionals and is based on a selection of data published in the last decade. HRQoL is on par with other clinical endpoints such as performance status. Assessments in clinical trials have been particularly useful for monitoring the symptom burden of NEN, for the effects of treatments on patients' lives, and have provided new data allied to the usual clinical endpoints. QoL expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) have become the most important primary outcome to establish cost-effectiveness in health economic evaluation. From looking at clinical trials over the last 10 years, we see that the quality of HRQoL evidence reported in published studies has improved and, in general, recent studies are likely to be more methodologically robust. Assessment of HRQoL in clinical trials is likely to become a standard part of clinical practice in NEN, as in other cancers. However, clear methods for calculating the clinical meaningfulness of changes in scores are needed. Other limitations of HRQoL measurement include lack of specificity to certain symptom sets and ease of completion and administration. An international group taking a lead on developing HRQoL research specifically in NEN patients is needed to address limitations of the evidence base. In order for greater weight to be placed on HRQoL data, agreement on optimal, validated scoring systems is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin Easton White
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK
| | - Maralyn R Druce
- Centre for Endocrinology, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg
- Neuroendocrine Tumor Unit, ENETS Center of Excellence, Department of Endocrinology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| | | | - Eva Maria Gamper
- Eva Maria Gamper - Innsbruck Institute of Patient-centered Outcome Research (IIPCOR), Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Debra Gray
- Department of Psychology, University of Winchester, Hampshire, UK
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - John K Ramage
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK
- King's Health Partners ENETS Centre of Excellence, Kings College hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Bowman K, Jones L, Masoli J, Mujica-Mota R, Strain D, Butchart J, Valderas JM, Fortinsky RH, Melzer D, Delgado J. Predicting incident delirium diagnoses using data from primary-care electronic health records. Age Ageing 2020; 49:374-381. [PMID: 32239180 PMCID: PMC7297278 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afaa006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE risk factors for delirium in hospital inpatients are well established, but less is known about whether delirium occurring in the community or during an emergency admission to hospital care might be predicted from routine primary-care records. OBJECTIVES identify risk factors in primary-care electronic health records (PC-EHR) predictive of delirium occurring in the community or recorded in the initial episode in emergency hospitalisation. Test predictive performance against the cumulative frailty index. DESIGN Stage 1: case-control; Stages 2 and 3: retrospective cohort. SETTING clinical practice research datalink: PC-EHR linked to hospital discharge data from England. SUBJECTS Stage 1: 17,286 patients with delirium aged ≥60 years plus 85,607 controls. Stages 2 and 3: patients ≥ 60 years (n = 429,548 in 2015), split into calibration and validation groups. METHODS Stage 1: logistic regression to identify associations of 110 candidate risk measures with delirium. Stage 2: calibrating risk factor weights. Stage 3: validation in independent sample using area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS fifty-five risk factors were predictive, in domains including: cognitive impairment or mental illness, psychoactive drugs, frailty, infection, hyponatraemia and anticholinergic drugs. The derived model predicted 1-year incident delirium (AUC = 0.867, 0.852:0.881) and mortality (AUC = 0.846, 0.842:0.853), outperforming the frailty index (AUC = 0.761, 0.740:0.782). Individuals with the highest 10% of predicted delirium risk accounted for 55% of incident delirium over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS a risk factor model for delirium using data in PC-EHR performed well, identifying individuals at risk of new onsets of delirium. This model has potential for supporting preventive interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kirsty Bowman
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - Lindsay Jones
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - Jane Masoli
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- The Health Economics Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK
| | - David Strain
- Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risk and Ageing, Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - Joe Butchart
- Department of Healthcare for Older People, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, RD&E, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - José M Valderas
- The Health Services and Policy Research Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK
| | - Richard H Fortinsky
- University of Connecticut, School of Medicine, Center on Aging, Mansfield, CT 06030-5215, USA
| | - David Melzer
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - João Delgado
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mujica-Mota R, Varley-Campbell J, Tikhonova I, Cooper C, Griffin E, Haasova M, Peters J, Lucherini S, Talens-Bou J, Long L, Sherriff D, Napier M, Ramage J, Hoyle M. Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2019; 22:1-326. [PMID: 30209002 DOI: 10.3310/hta22490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jo Varley-Campbell
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Irina Tikhonova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Chris Cooper
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Ed Griffin
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Marcela Haasova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jaime Peters
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Stefano Lucherini
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Juan Talens-Bou
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Linda Long
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - David Sherriff
- Plymouth Oncology Centre, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - Mark Napier
- Exeter Oncology Centre, Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - John Ramage
- Neuroendocrine Tumour Service, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Martin Hoyle
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Villeneuve E, Landa P, Allen M, Spencer A, Prosser S, Gibson A, Kelsey K, Mujica-Mota R, Manktelow B, Modi N, Thornton S, Pitt M. A framework to address key issues of neonatal service configuration in England: the NeoNet multimethods study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2018. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr06350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundThere is an inherent tension in neonatal services between the efficiency and specialised care that comes with centralisation and the provision of local services with associated ease of access and community benefits. This study builds on previous work in South West England to address these issues at a national scale.Objectives(1) To develop an analytical framework to address key issues of neonatal service configuration in England, (2) to investigate visualisation tools to facilitate the communication of findings to stakeholder groups and (3) to assess parental preferences in relation to service configuration alternatives.Main outcome measuresThe ability to meet nurse staffing guidelines, volumes of units, costs, mortality, number and distance of transfers, travel distances and travel times for parents.DesignDescriptive statistics, location analysis, mathematical modelling, discrete event simulation and economic analysis were used. Qualitative methods were used to interview policy-makers and parents. A parent advisory group supported the study.SettingNHS neonatal services across England.DataNeonatal care data were sourced from the National Neonatal Research Database. Information on neonatal units was drawn from the National Neonatal Audit Programme. Geographic and demographic data were sourced from the Office for National Statistics. Travel time data were retrieved via a geographic information system. Birth data were sourced from Hospital Episode Statistics. Parental cost data were collected via a survey.ResultsLocation analysis shows that to achieve 100% of births in units with ≥ 6000 births per year, the number of birth centres would need to be reduced from 161 to approximately 72, with more parents travelling > 30 minutes. The maximum number of neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) needed to achieve 100% of very low-birthweight infants attending high-volume units is 36 with existing NICUs, or 48 if NICUs are located wherever there is currently a neonatal unit of any level. Simulation modelling further demonstrated the workforce implications of different configurations. Mortality modelling shows that the birth of very preterm infants in high-volume hospitals reduces mortality (a conservative estimate of a 1.2-percentage-point lower risk) relative to these births in other hospitals. It is currently not possible to estimate the impact of mortality for infants transferred into NICUs. Cost modelling shows that the mean length of stay following a birth in a high-volume hospital is 9 days longer and the mean cost is £5715 more than for a birth in another neonatal unit. In addition, the incremental cost per neonatal life saved is £460,887, which is comparable to other similar life-saving interventions. The analysis of parent costs identified unpaid leave entitlement, food, travel, accommodation, baby care and parking as key factors. The qualitative study suggested that central concerns were the health of the baby and mother, communication by medical teams and support for families.LimitationsThe following factors could not be modelled because of a paucity of data – morbidity outcomes, the impact of transfers and the maternity/neonatal service interface.ConclusionsAn evidence-based framework was developed to inform the configuration of neonatal services and model system performance from the perspectives of both service providers and parents.Future workTo extend the modelling to encompass the interface between maternity and neonatal services.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Villeneuve
- National Institute for Health Research: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care – South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Paolo Landa
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Michael Allen
- National Institute for Health Research: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care – South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Anne Spencer
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Sue Prosser
- Neonatal Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - Andrew Gibson
- Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| | - Katie Kelsey
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Brad Manktelow
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Neena Modi
- Section of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Steve Thornton
- Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Martin Pitt
- National Institute for Health Research: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care – South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Jones-Hughes T, Snowsill T, Haasova M, Coelho H, Crathorne L, Cooper C, Mujica-Mota R, Peters J, Varley-Campbell J, Huxley N, Moore J, Allwood M, Lowe J, Hyde C, Hoyle M, Bond M, Anderson R. Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-594. [PMID: 27578428 DOI: 10.3310/hta20620] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tracey Jones-Hughes
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Tristan Snowsill
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Marcela Haasova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Helen Coelho
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Louise Crathorne
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Chris Cooper
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jaime Peters
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jo Varley-Campbell
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Nicola Huxley
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jason Moore
- Exeter Kidney Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - Matt Allwood
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jenny Lowe
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Chris Hyde
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Martin Hoyle
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Mary Bond
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Rob Anderson
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Haasova M, Snowsill T, Jones-Hughes T, Crathorne L, Cooper C, Varley-Campbell J, Mujica-Mota R, Coelho H, Huxley N, Lowe J, Dudley J, Marks S, Hyde C, Bond M, Anderson R. Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-324. [PMID: 27557331 DOI: 10.3310/hta20610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation. DATA SOURCES Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost). REVIEW METHODS Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC. LIMITATIONS The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence. CONCLUSIONS TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcela Haasova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Tristan Snowsill
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Tracey Jones-Hughes
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Louise Crathorne
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Chris Cooper
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jo Varley-Campbell
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Helen Coelho
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Nicola Huxley
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jenny Lowe
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jan Dudley
- Department of Paediatric Nephrology, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust), Bristol, UK
| | - Stephen Marks
- Department of Paediatric Nephrology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Hyde
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Mary Bond
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Rob Anderson
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Perazzo H, Jorge MJ, Silva JC, Avellar AM, Silva PS, Romero C, Veloso VG, Mujica-Mota R, Anderson R, Hyde C, Castro R. Micro-costing analysis of guideline-based treatment by direct-acting agents: the real-life case of hepatitis C management in Brazil. BMC Gastroenterol 2017; 17:119. [PMID: 29169329 PMCID: PMC5701370 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0676-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Eradication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) using direct-acting agents (DAA) has been associated with a financial burden to health authorities worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the guideline-based treatment costs by DAAs from the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (BMoH). METHODS The activity based costing method was used to estimate the cost for monitoring/treatment of genotype-1 (GT1) HCV patients by the following strategies: peg-interferon (PEG-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV plus boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TEL) for 48 weeks, and sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclastavir (DCV) or simeprevir (SIM) for 12 weeks. Costs were reported in United States Dollars without (US$) and with adjustment for purchasing power parity (PPP$). Drug costs were collected at the National Database of Health Prices and an overview of the literature was performed to assess effectiveness of SOF/DCV and SOF/SIM regimens in real-world cohorts. RESULTS Treatment costs of GT1-HCV patients were PPP$ 43,176.28 (US$ 24,020.16) for PEG-IFN/RBV, PPP$ 71,196.03 (US$ 39,578.23) for PEG-IFN/RBV/BOC and PPP$ 86,250.33 (US$ 47,946.92) for PEG-IFN/RBV/TEL. Treatment by all-oral interferon-free regimens were the less expensive approach: PPP$ 19,761.72 (US$ 10,985.90) for SOF/DCV and PPP$ 21,590.91 (US$ 12,002.75) for SOF/SIM. The overview reported HCV eradication in up to 98% for SOF/DCV and 96% for SOF/SIM. CONCLUSION Strategies with all oral interferon-free might lead to lower costs for management of GT1-HCV patients compared to IFN-based regimens in Brazil. This occurred mainly because of high discounts over international DAA prices due to negotiation between BMoH and pharmaceutical industries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hugo Perazzo
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Laboratório de Pesquisa Clínica em DST e AIDS, LAPCLIN-AIDS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
| | - Marcelino Jose Jorge
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Laboratório de Pesquisa em Economia das Organizações de Saúde, LAPECOS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Julio Castro Silva
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Plataforma de Pesquisa Clínica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Alexandre Monken Avellar
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Laboratório de Pesquisa em Economia das Organizações de Saúde, LAPECOS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Patrícia Santos Silva
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Laboratório de Pesquisa em Economia das Organizações de Saúde, LAPECOS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Carmen Romero
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde, CDTS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Valdilea Gonçalves Veloso
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Laboratório de Pesquisa Clínica em DST e AIDS, LAPCLIN-AIDS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- University of Exeter Medical School, UEMS, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Exeter, UK
| | - Rob Anderson
- University of Exeter Medical School, UEMS, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Exeter, UK
| | - Chris Hyde
- University of Exeter Medical School, UEMS, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Exeter, UK
| | - Rodolfo Castro
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Laboratório de Pesquisa Clínica em DST e AIDS, LAPCLIN-AIDS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.,Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, UNIRIO, Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, ISC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Crathorne L, Huxley N, Haasova M, Snowsill T, Jones-Hughes T, Hoyle M, Briscoe S, Coelho H, Long L, Medina-Lara A, Mujica-Mota R, Napier M, Hyde C. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating cancer treatment-induced anaemia (including review of technology appraisal no. 142): a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20:1-588, v-vi. [PMID: 26907163 DOI: 10.3310/hta20130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anaemia is a common side effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA). OBJECTIVE To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ESAs in anaemia associated with cancer treatment (specifically chemotherapy). DATA SOURCES The following databases were searched from 2004 to 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, Health Management Information Consortium, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites were also searched. Bibliographies of included papers were scrutinised for further potentially includable studies. REVIEW METHODS The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care, placebo or other ESAs. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. When appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment with no ESA treatment. The model comprised two components: one evaluating short-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (while patients are anaemic) and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS Of 1457 titles and abstracts screened, 23 studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current European Union licenses. The results suggest a clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes and an improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain, although point estimates are lower, confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment compared with no ESA treatment ranged from £ 19,429 to £ 35,018 per QALY gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost. LIMITATIONS The relative effectiveness of ESAs was not addressed; all ESAs were assumed to have equivalent efficacy. No studies were completely aligned with their European labelling beyond the starting dose evaluated. There is questionable generalisability given that the included trials were published >20 years ago and there have been many changes to chemotherapy as well as to the quality of supportive treatment. Trial quality was moderate or poor and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity for a number of outcomes, particularly survival, and evidence of publication bias. Adjustments were not made to account for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence, but there is considerable uncertainty, mainly because of unknown impacts on overall survival. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005812. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Crathorne
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Nicola Huxley
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Marcela Haasova
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Tristan Snowsill
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Tracey Jones-Hughes
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Martin Hoyle
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Simon Briscoe
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Helen Coelho
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Linda Long
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | | | - Ruben Mujica-Mota
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | | | - Chris Hyde
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
|
19
|
Crathorne L, Huxley N, Haasova M, Snowsill T, Jones-Hughes T, Hoyle M, Briscoe S, Coelho H, Long L, Medina-Lara A, Mujica-Mota R, Napier M, Hyde C. What is the Clinical Effectiveness of Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents for the Treatment of Cancer Treatment-Induced Anaemia? Ann Oncol 2014. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu356.19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
20
|
Huxley N, Snowsill T, Hoyle M, Crathorne L, Haasova M, Briscoe S, Coelho H, Medina-Lara A, Mujica-Mota R, Napier M, Hyde C. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents for Treating Cancer-Treatment Induced Anaemia. Ann Oncol 2014. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu341.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|