Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent asthma in children aged 6-11 years, based upon the evidence submission from Novartis Pharmaceutical UK Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer's submission was generally considered to be of good quality. The submission was based primarily on a preplanned subgroup IA-05 EUP (European Union Population) from the IA-05 trial, with outcomes including the number of clinically significant (CS) and clinically significant severe (CSS) exacerbations. Omalizumab therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of CS exacerbations, but the reduction in the rate of CSS exacerbations was not statistically significant. The benefit in terms of CS exacerbations was achieved mainly in patients with more than three exacerbations per year at baseline. The manufacturer found no previous published cost-effectiveness studies of omalizumab in children aged 6-11 years, so their de novo economic evaluation formed the basis of the submitted economic evidence. The economic model was considered appropriate for the decision problem. The results from the model indicated that omalizumab in addition to standard therapy compared with standard therapy alone did not appear cost-effective in either the overall population or a subgroup of patients hospitalised in the year prior to enrollment, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £ 91,169 and £ 65,911 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. These findings were found to be robust across a wide range of alternative assumptions through one-way sensitivity analyses. The guidance issued by NICE states that omalizumab is not recommended for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years.

Risk profiles of prostate cancers identified from UK primary care using national referral guidelines

Objective:

Prostate cancer in the United Kingdom is mainly diagnosed from primary care referrals based on national guidelines published by the Department of Health. Here we investigated the characteristics of cancers detected through the use of these guidelines.

Methods:

A prospective two-centre study was established to assess men referred from the primary care based on the UK national guidelines.

Results:

The overall cancer detection rate was 43% (169 out of 397) with 15% (26 out of 169) of all cancers metastatic at presentation. Amongst 50–69-year-old men these rates were 34% (68 out of 200) and 15% (10 out of 68). Only 21% (25 out of 123) of men with local cancers had low-risk disease. In comparison to a historical cohort from 2001 (n=137) we found no overall differences in rates of metastatic disease, locally advanced tumours, or risk categories. Amongst 50–69-year-old men with local disease, however, we observed an increase in detection of low-risk cancers in a contemporary cohort (P=0.04). This was primarily because of the increased detection of low-stage organ-confined tumours in this group (P=0.02).

Conclusion:

Use of the UK prostate cancer guidelines detects a high proportion of clinically significant cancers. Use of the guidelines does not seem to have led to an overall change in the clinical characteristics of presenting cancers. There may, however, be a specific benefit in detecting more low-risk disease in younger men.

Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6–11 years

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent asthma in children aged 6–11 years, based upon the evidence submission from Novartis Pharmaceutical UK Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer’s submission was generally considered to be of good quality. The submission was based primarily on a preplanned subgroup IA-05 EUP (European Union Population) from the IA-05 trial, with outcomes including the number of clinically significant (CS) and clinically significant severe (CSS) exacerbations. Omalizumab therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of CS exacerbations, but the reduction in the rate of CSS exacerbations was not statistically significant. The benefit in terms of CS exacerbations was achieved mainly in patients with more than three exacerbations per year at baseline. The manufacturer found no previous published cost-effectiveness studies of omalizumab in children aged 6–11 years, so their de novo economic evaluation formed the basis of the submitted economic evidence. The economic model was considered appropriate for the decision problem. The results from the model indicated that omalizumab in addition to standard therapy compared with standard therapy alone did not appear cost-effective in either the overall population or a subgroup of patients hospitalised in the year prior to enrolment, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £91,169 and £65,911 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. These findings were found to be robust across a wide range of alternative assumptions through one-way sensitivity analyses. The guidance issued by NICE states that omalizumab is not recommended for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6–11 years.

The innate immune response, clinical outcomes, and ex vivo HCV antiviral efficacy of a TLR7 agonist (PF-4878691)

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an issue of global concern, and studies are ongoing to identify new therapies that are both effective and safe. PF-4878691 is a Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonist modeled so as to dissociate its antiviral activities from its inflammatory activities. In a proof-of-mechanism study in healthy volunteers who received doses of 3, 6, and 9 mg of PF-4878691 twice a week for 2 weeks, PF-4878691 induced biomarkers of the immune and interferon (IFN) responses in a dose-dependent and dose-frequency-related manner. A novel finding was induction of TLR7 expression in vivo in response to PF-4878691, leading to an amplified biomarker response. A nonresponder at the 9-mg dose had a polymorphism in the IFN-α receptor 1 subunit (Val168Leu). Two subjects who had received 9-mg doses experienced serious adverse events (SAEs), characterized by flu-like symptoms, hypotension, and lymphopenia, leading to early termination of the study. TLR7 stimulation results in a pharmacologic response at levels commensurate with predicted antiviral efficacy, but these doses are associated with SAEs, raising concerns about the therapeutic window of this class of compounds for the treatment of HCV infection.

Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the reduction in morphine-related side-effects after major surgery: a systematic review

Non-opioid analgesics, paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors are often given along with morphine as part of multimodal analgesia after major surgery. We have undertaken a systematic review and a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) analysis in order to determine explicitly which class of non-opioid analgesic, paracetamol, NSAIDs, or COX-2 inhibitors is the most effective in reducing morphine consumption and morphine-related adverse effects. Sixty relevant studies were identified. The MTC found that when paracetamol, NSAIDs, or COX-2 inhibitors were added to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine, there was a statistically significant reduction in morphine consumption: paracetamol [mean difference (MD) -6.34 mg; 95% credibility interval (CrI) -9.02, -3.65], NSAIDs (MD -10.18; 95% CrI -11.65, -8.72), and COX-2 inhibitors (MD -10.92; 95% CrI -12.77, -9.08). There was a significant reduction in nausea and postoperative nausea and vomiting with NSAIDs compared with placebo (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CrI 0.53, 0.88) but not for paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors, nor for NSAIDs compared with paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors. There was no statistically significant difference in sedation between any intervention and comparator. On the basis of six trials (n=695), 2.4% of participants receiving an NSAID experienced surgical-related bleeding compared with 0.4% with placebo. The MTC found that there is a decrease in 24 h morphine consumption when paracetamol, NSAID, or COX-2 inhibitors are given in addition to PCA morphine after surgery, with no clear difference between them. Similarly, the benefits in terms of reduction in morphine-related adverse effects do not strongly favour one of the three non-opioid analgesics.

Mean arterial blood pressure and the assessment of acutely ill patients

This article discusses the role of vital sign data collection in the acute setting when assessing patients at risk of or actually clinically deteriorating. Specifically, the article focuses on explaining the important concepts of mean arterial blood pressure and pulse pressure as indicators of clinical deterioration.

Capecitabine for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into capecitabine for advanced gastric cancer (aGC). Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The decision problem addressed was the use of capecitabine (X) compared to 5-FU (F), in combination regimens with platinum agents [cisplatin (C) or oxaliplatin (O)] with or without epirubicin (E), in patients with inoperable aGC. Approximately 7000 new cases of gastric cancer are diagnosed in England and Wales every year. Of these, 80% are candidates for palliative chemotherapy and around 2900 receive such treatment. The standard UK practice for patients with aGC who are considered fit enough has consisted of a triplet regimen comprising intravenous 5-FU in combination with a platinum agent (capecitabine or oxaliplatin) and epirubicin. The manufacturer's submission (MS) focused on direct evidence from two phase III non-inferiority randomised controlled trials (RCTs), REAL-2 (Randomized ECF for Advanced and Locally advanced oesophagogastric cancer-2; n = 1002) and ML17032 (n = 316). REAL-2 randomised patients to four regimens (ECF, ECX, EOF and EOX) to compare 5-FU with capecitabine and cisplatin with oxaliplatin, whereas ML17032 compared CX with CF. Efficacy outcomes from these trials were pooled in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Both RCTs demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of capecitabine on the outcome of overall survival (OS) assessed in the per-protocol population; equivalent results were also demonstrated for progression-free survival (PFS). The IPD meta-analysis found a statistically significant benefit in OS for capecitabine compared with 5-FU [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.98, p = 0.027]. There was no evidence of a poorer safety profile for capecitabine overall, nor of any difference in quality of life (QoL) between the two fluoropyrimidines. The MS included a de novo economic evaluation based on a cost-minimisation analysis (CMA), where the costs of capecitabine-based regimens were compared with their equivalent 5-FU-based regimens in aGC. A time horizon of 5.5 cycles (each lasting for 21 days) was used in the base-case analysis, representing the duration of treatment. The results of the manufacturer's base-case analysis showed that capecitabine regimens are associated with mean net cost savings of 1620 pounds (ECX vs ECF), 1572 pounds (EOX vs EOF) and 4210 pounds (CX vs CF). The manufacturer failed to comment explicitly on the uncertainty around the estimates of efficacy and on the fact that the IPD meta-analysis suggests that capecitabine may actually be more effective on average. Further analyses exploring additional costs incurred by the UK NHS from extending survival duration showed that these are unlikely to have a material effect on conclusions. A full probabilistic analysis was not performed; however, the evidence explored by the MS and ERG is consistent in suggesting that capecitabine has a lower mean cost than 5-FU-based regimens. The submission was considered to contain convincing evidence of the non-inferiority of capecitabine to 5-FU on survival; this evidence was considered to be applicable to UK practice. Although some uncertainty remains, the ERG deemed CMA to be an appropriate framework with which to analyse this decision problem. Overall cost estimates for the CMA were generated appropriately and were robust to uncertainties regarding assumptions and sources. At the time of writing, the guidance document issued by NICE on 28 July 2010 states that capecitabine in combination with a platinum-based regimen is recommended for the first-line treatment of inoperable advanced gastric cancer.

Capecitabine for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into capecitabine for advanced gastric cancer (aGC). Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The decision problem addressed was the use of capecitabine (X) compared to 5-FU (F), in combination regimens with platinum agents [cisplatin (C) or oxaliplatin (O)] with or without epirubicin (E), in patients with inoperable aGC. Approximately 7000 new cases of gastric cancer are diagnosed in England and Wales every year. Of these, 80% are candidates for palliative chemotherapy and around 2900 receive such treatment. The standard UK practice for patients with aGC who are considered fit enough has consisted of a triplet regimen comprising intravenous 5-FU in combination with a platinum agent (capecitabine or oxaliplatin) and epirubicin. The manufacturer’s submission (MS) focused on direct evidence from two phase III non-inferiority randomised controlled trials (RCTs), REAL-2 (Randomized ECF for Advanced and Locally advanced oesophagogastric cancer-2; n = 1002) and ML17032 (n = 316). REAL-2 randomised patients to four regimens (ECF, ECX, EOF and EOX) to compare 5-FU with capecitabine and cisplatin with oxaliplatin, whereas ML17032 compared CX with CF. Efficacy outcomes from these trials were pooled in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Both RCTs demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of capecitabine on the outcome of overall survival (OS) assessed in the per-protocol population; equivalent results were also demonstrated for progression-free survival (PFS). The IPD meta-analysis found a statistically significant benefit in OS for capecitabine compared with 5-FU [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.98, p = 0.027]. There was no evidence of a poorer safety profile for capecitabine overall, nor of any difference in quality of life (QoL) between the two fluoropyrimidines. The MS included a de novo economic evaluation based on a cost-minimisation analysis (CMA), where the costs of capecitabine-based regimens were compared with their equivalent 5-FU-based regimens in aGC. A time horizon of 5.5 cycles (each lasting for 21 days) was used in the base-case analysis, representing the duration of treatment. The results of the manufacturer’s base-case analysis showed that capecitabine regimens are associated with mean net cost savings of £1620 (ECX vs ECF), £1572 (EOX vs EOF) and £4210 (CX vs CF). The manufacturer failed to comment explicitly on the uncertainty around the estimates of efficacy and on the fact that the IPD meta-analysis suggests that capecitabine may actually be more effective on average. Further analyses exploring additional costs incurred by the UK NHS from extending survival duration showed that these are unlikely to have a material effect on conclusions. A full probabilistic analysis was not performed; however, the evidence explored by the MS and ERG is consistent in suggesting that capecitabine has a lower mean cost than 5-FU-based regimens. The submission was considered to contain convincing evidence of the non-inferiority of capecitabine to 5-FU on survival; this evidence was considered to be applicable to UK practice. Although some uncertainty remains, the ERG deemed CMA to be an appropriate framework with which to analyse this decision problem. Overall cost estimates for the CMA were generated appropriately and were robust to uncertainties regarding assumptions and sources. At the time of writing, the guidance document issued by NICE on 28 July 2010 states that capecitabine in combination with a platinum-based regimen is recommended for the first-line treatment of inoperable advanced gastric cancer.

HIV stigma, disclosure and psychosocial distress among Thai youth living with HIV

The objective of the present paper is to assess stigma and to create an abbreviated 12-item Stigma Scale based on the 40-item Berger's Stigma Scale for Thai youth living with HIV (TYLH). TYLH aged 16-25 years answered the 40-item Stigma Scale and the questionnaires on mental health, social support, quality of life and alcohol/substance use. Sixty-two (88.6%) of 70 TYLH reported at least one person knowing their serostatus. Men having sex with men were more likely to disclose the diagnosis to friends (43.9% versus 6.1%, P < 0.01) and less likely to disclose to families (47.6% versus 91.8%, P < 0.01). Women were more likely to disclose to families (90.2% versus 62.1%, P < 0.01) and less likely to disclose to friends (7.3% versus 31%, P < 0.05). The 12-item Stigma Scale was reliable (Cronbach's alpha, 0.75) and highly correlated with the 40-item scale (r = 0.846, P < 0.01). Half of TYLH had mental health problems. The 12-item Stigma Scale score was significantly associated with mental health problems (beta = 0.21, P < 0.05). Public attitudes towards HIV were associated with poorer quality of life (beta = -1.41, P < 0.01) and mental health problems (beta = 1.18, P < 0.01). In conclusion, the12-item Stigma Scale was reliable for TYLH. Increasing public understanding and education could reduce stigma and improve mental health and quality of life in TYLH.

Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the reduction of morphine-related side effects after major surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine which class of non-opioid analgesics - paracetamol (acetaminophen), NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors - is the most effective at reducing morphine consumption and associated adverse effects when used as part of multimodal analgesia following major surgery.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, searched from January 2003 to February 2009 and updating an earlier review.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol, NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors to each other or placebo, in adults receiving patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine following major surgery, were included. The COX-2 inhibitors rofecoxib and valdecoxib were excluded. Only trials that reported 24-hour morphine consumption were included. Other outcomes of interest were morphine-related adverse effects and adverse effects related to the non-opioids. Adequacy of randomisation, concealment of allocation, double blinding, and the flow of patients within the trial was assessed. The main analysis was a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) evaluating the relative effects of the four treatment classes. Four main outcomes were prioritised: 24-hour morphine consumption, sedation, nausea and vomiting, and surgical bleeding. Studies reporting nausea alone were pooled with studies reporting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Comparisons were described as statistically significant (at 5% level) when the credibility interval (CrI) did not cross 1 for odds ratio (OR) and zero for mean difference (MD). Trials making direct comparisons between the active interventions were also pooled in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of study quality, individual drugs, and baseline morphine consumption.

RESULTS

Sixty relevant studies were identified. When paracetamol, NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors were added to PCA morphine, there was a statistically significant reduction in morphine consumption: paracetamol (MD -6.34 mg; 95% CrI -9.02 to -3.65); NSAIDs (MD -10.18; 95% CrI -11.65 to -8.72); and COX-2 inhibitors (MD -10.92; 95% CrI -12.77 to -9.08). NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors were both significantly better than paracetamol, and there was no significant difference between NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors (MD -0.74; 95% CrI -3.03 to 1.56). There was a significant reduction in nausea and PONV with NSAIDs compared to placebo (OR 0.70; 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.88) but not for paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors, nor for NSAIDs compared to paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

24-hour morphine consumption decreased by 6.3 mg to 10.9 mg, compared to placebo, when paracetamol, NSAID or COX-2 inhibitors were added to PCA morphine following surgery. Differences in effect between the three drug classes were small and unlikely to be of clinical significance. There does not appear to be a strong case for recommending routine addition of any of the three non-opioids to PCA morphine in the 24 hours immediately after surgery, or for favouring one drug class above the others.