1
|
Horner DE, Davis S, Pandor A, Shulver H, Goodacre S, Hind D, Rex S, Gillett M, Bursnall M, Griffin X, Holland M, Hunt BJ, de Wit K, Bennett S, Pierce-Williams R. Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-166. [PMID: 38634415 PMCID: PMC11056814 DOI: 10.3310/awtw6200] [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] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. Objectives We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. Design We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. Setting NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Participants Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Interventions Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Main outcome measures Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. Results We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Limitations Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Conclusions Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Future work Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Edward Horner
- Emergency Department, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Sarah Davis
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Abdullah Pandor
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Helen Shulver
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Steve Goodacre
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Daniel Hind
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Saleema Rex
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Michael Gillett
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Matthew Bursnall
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Xavier Griffin
- Barts Bone and Joint Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Mark Holland
- School of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK
| | - Beverley Jane Hunt
- Thrombosis & Haemophilia Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, King's Healthcare Partners, London, UK
| | - Kerstin de Wit
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Shan Bennett
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mackenzie IS, Hawkey CJ, Ford I, Greenlaw N, Pigazzani F, Rogers A, Struthers AD, Begg AG, Wei L, Avery AJ, Taggar JS, Walker A, Duce SL, Barr RJ, Dumbleton JS, Rooke ED, Townend JN, Ritchie LD, MacDonald TM. Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-55. [PMID: 38551218 PMCID: PMC11017142 DOI: 10.3310/attm4092] [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] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions Participants were randomised (1 : 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a 'within trial' cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Future work The effects of allopurinol on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease and co-existing hyperuricaemia or clinical gout could be explored in future studies. Trial registration This trial is registered as EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2013-003559-39) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN 32017426). Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isla S Mackenzie
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | | | - Ian Ford
- The Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Nicola Greenlaw
- The Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Filippo Pigazzani
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Amy Rogers
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Allan D Struthers
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Alan G Begg
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Li Wei
- School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anthony J Avery
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Jaspal S Taggar
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Suzanne L Duce
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Rebecca J Barr
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | | | - Evelien D Rooke
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Jonathan N Townend
- Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Thomas M MacDonald
- MEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brunt AM, Haviland JS, Wheatley DA, Sydenham MA, Bloomfield DJ, Chan C, Cleator S, Coles CE, Donovan E, Fleming H, Glynn D, Goodman A, Griffin S, Hopwood P, Kirby AM, Kirwan CC, Nabi Z, Patel J, Sawyer E, Somaiah N, Syndikus I, Venables K, Yarnold JR, Bliss JM. One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-176. [PMID: 37991196 PMCID: PMC11017153 DOI: 10.3310/wwbf1044] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Background FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial. Design Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs. Sub-studies Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling. Limitations A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied. Participants Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies. Results Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy. Interpretation Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Future work Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported. Trial registration FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrian Murray Brunt
- School of Medicine, University of Keele and University Hospitals of North Midlands, Staffordshire, UK
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Joanne S Haviland
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Duncan A Wheatley
- Department of Oncology, Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust, Truro, UK
| | - Mark A Sydenham
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - David J Bloomfield
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, Brighton, UK
| | - Charlie Chan
- Women's Health Clinic, Nuffield Health Cheltenham Hospital, Cheltenham, UK
| | - Suzy Cleator
- Department of Oncology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Ellen Donovan
- Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Helen Fleming
- Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Group, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK
| | - David Glynn
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | | | - Susan Griffin
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - Penelope Hopwood
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anna M Kirby
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK and Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Cliona C Kirwan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Zohal Nabi
- RTQQA, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Middlesex, UK
| | - Jaymini Patel
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Elinor Sawyer
- Comprehensive Cancer Centre, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Navita Somaiah
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK and Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Isabel Syndikus
- Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Clatterbridge Hospital NHS Trust, Cheshire, UK
| | | | - John R Yarnold
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK and Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Judith M Bliss
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Metry A, Pandor A, Ren S, Shippam A, Clowes M, Dark P, McMullan R, Stevenson M. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-92. [PMID: 37840452 PMCID: PMC10591210 DOI: 10.3310/nafw3527] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation. Setting Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings. Methods Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee. Results The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified. Conclusions The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies. Future work Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Metry
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Abdullah Pandor
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Shijie Ren
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andrea Shippam
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mark Clowes
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Paul Dark
- The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Ronan McMullan
- School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Wellcome Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Matt Stevenson
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bresnahan R, Duarte R, Mahon J, Beale S, Chaplin M, Bhattacharyya D, Houten R, Edwards K, Nevitt S, Maden M, Boland A. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-115. [PMID: 37839810 PMCID: PMC10591209 DOI: 10.3310/kgju3398] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Objectives The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Data sources The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment. Methods A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results. Results The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters. Limitations Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited. Conclusions Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891. Funding Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of 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. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Bresnahan
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Rui Duarte
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - James Mahon
- Coldingham Analytical Services, Berwickshire, UK
| | | | - Marty Chaplin
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Rachel Houten
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Katherine Edwards
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sarah Nevitt
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Michelle Maden
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Angela Boland
- LRiG, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Taylor AH, Thompson TP, Streeter A, Chynoweth J, Snowsill T, Ingram W, Ussher M, Aveyard P, Murray RL, Harris T, Green C, Horrell J, Callaghan L, Greaves CJ, Price L, Cartwright L, Wilks J, Campbell S, Preece D, Creanor S. Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-277. [PMID: 37022933 PMCID: PMC10150295 DOI: 10.3310/kltg1447] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear. Objectives The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective. Design This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation. Setting and participants Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458). Intervention The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Results The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236). Conclusions There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective. Limitations Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence. Future work Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrian H Taylor
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Tom P Thompson
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Adam Streeter
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Jade Chynoweth
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Tristan Snowsill
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Wendy Ingram
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Michael Ussher
- Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rachael L Murray
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Tess Harris
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Colin Green
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Jane Horrell
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Lynne Callaghan
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Colin J Greaves
- School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lisa Price
- Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Lucy Cartwright
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Jonny Wilks
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Sarah Campbell
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Dan Preece
- Public Health, Plymouth City Council, Plymouth, UK
| | - Siobhan Creanor
- Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lim E, Harris RA, McKeon HE, Batchelor TJ, Dunning J, Shackcloth M, Anikin V, Naidu B, Belcher E, Loubani M, Zamvar V, Dabner L, Brush T, Stokes EA, Wordsworth S, Paramasivan S, Realpe A, Elliott D, Blazeby J, Rogers CA. Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-162. [PMID: 36524582 PMCID: PMC9791462 DOI: 10.3310/thbq1793] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1. LIMITATIONS Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population. CONCLUSIONS Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS. FUTURE WORK Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721. 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. 26, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
|
8
|
Mountain G, Wright J, Cooper CL, Lee E, Sprange K, Beresford-Dent J, Young T, Walters S, Berry K, Dening T, Loban A, Turton E, Thomas BD, Young EL, Thompson BJ, Crawford B, Craig C, Bowie P, Moniz-Cook E, Foster A. An intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia: the Journeying through Dementia RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-152. [PMID: 35536231 DOI: 10.3310/khha0861] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are few effective interventions for dementia. AIM To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia. OBJECTIVES To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants' experiences. DESIGN A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat. PARTICIPANTS A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part. INTERVENTION Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded. DATA SOURCES Outcome measures were administered in participants' homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists. RESULTS The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener's Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of -£202,857 (95% confidence interval -£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format. FUTURE WORK Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825. 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. 26, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gail Mountain
- Centre for Applied Dementia Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
| | - Jessica Wright
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Cindy L Cooper
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Ellen Lee
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Kirsty Sprange
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Tracey Young
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Stephen Walters
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Katherine Berry
- Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Tom Dening
- Division of Psychiatry & Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Amanda Loban
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Emily Turton
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Benjamin D Thomas
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Emma L Young
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Benjamin J Thompson
- Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Bethany Crawford
- Division of Psychiatry & Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Claire Craig
- Art and Design Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
| | - Peter Bowie
- Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Alexis Foster
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Maheshwari A, Bari V, Bell JL, Bhattacharya S, Bhide P, Bowler U, Brison D, Child T, Chong HY, Cheong Y, Cole C, Coomarasamy A, Cutting R, Goodgame F, Hardy P, Hamoda H, Juszczak E, Khalaf Y, King A, Kurinczuk JJ, Lavery S, Lewis-Jones C, Linsell L, Macklon N, Mathur R, Murray D, Pundir J, Raine-Fenning N, Rajkohwa M, Robinson L, Scotland G, Stanbury K, Troup S. Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-142. [PMID: 35603917 PMCID: PMC9376799 DOI: 10.3310/aefu1104] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. 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. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abha Maheshwari
- Aberdeen Fertility Centre, NHS Grampian and University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Vasha Bari
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jennifer L Bell
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Priya Bhide
- Assisted Conception Unit, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Ursula Bowler
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Daniel Brison
- Assisted Conception Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Tim Child
- Oxford Fertility, The Fertility Partnership, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Huey Yi Chong
- Aberdeen Fertility Centre, NHS Grampian and University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Ying Cheong
- Complete Fertility Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Christina Cole
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Arri Coomarasamy
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Rachel Cutting
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, London, UK
| | - Fiona Goodgame
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Pollyanna Hardy
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Haitham Hamoda
- Assisted Conception Unit, King's College Hospital, London, UK
| | - Edmund Juszczak
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Yacoub Khalaf
- Assisted Conception Unit and Centre for Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital and King's College London, London, UK
| | - Andrew King
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jennifer J Kurinczuk
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stuart Lavery
- Assisted Conception Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Louise Linsell
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nick Macklon
- London Women's Clinic, London, UK.,Gynaecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Raj Mathur
- Assisted Conception Unit, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - David Murray
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jyotsna Pundir
- Assisted Conception Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | | | - Lynne Robinson
- Gyanecology and Assisted Conception, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Graham Scotland
- Aberdeen Fertility Centre, NHS Grampian and University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Kayleigh Stanbury
- Clinical Trials Unit National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Daniels J, Middleton LJ, Cheed V, McKinnon W, Rana D, Sirkeci F, Manyonda I, Belli AM, Lumsden MA, Moss J, Wu O, McPherson K. Uterine artery embolisation versus myomectomy for premenopausal women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: the FEMME RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-74. [PMID: 35435818 DOI: 10.3310/zdeg6110] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Uterine fibroids are the most common tumour in women of reproductive age and are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility and reduced quality of life. For women wishing to retain their uterus and who do not respond to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine artery embolisation are therapeutic options. OBJECTIVES We examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation compared with myomectomy in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids. DESIGN A multicentre, open, randomised trial with a parallel economic evaluation. SETTING Twenty-nine UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation were recruited. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy or pelvic inflammatory disease or if they had already had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolisation in a 1 : 1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic. Embolisation of the uterine arteries was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire (with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and a higher score indicating better quality of life) at 2 years, adjusted for baseline score. The economic evaluation estimated quality-adjusted life-years (derived from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and costs from the NHS perspective). RESULTS A total of 254 women were randomised - 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolisation (98 underwent embolisation). Information on the primary outcome at 2 years was available for 81% (n = 206) of women. Primary outcome scores at 2 years were 84.6 (standard deviation 21.5) in the myomectomy group and 80.0 (standard deviation 22.0) in the uterine artery embolisation group (intention-to-treat complete-case analysis mean adjusted difference 8.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 14.1, p = 0.01; mean adjusted difference using multiple imputation for missing responses 6.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 11.9). The mean difference in the primary outcome at the 4-year follow-up time point was 5.0 (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures occurred in similar percentages of women in both groups (29% in the myomectomy group vs. 24% in the UAE group). Twelve women in the uterine embolisation group and six women in the myomectomy group reported pregnancies over 4 years, resulting in seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 1.28). Over a 2-year time horizon, uterine artery embolisation was associated with higher costs than myomectomy (mean cost £7958, 95% confidence interval £6304 to £9612, vs. mean cost £7314, 95% confidence interval £5854 to £8773), but with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.78, vs. 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.87). The differences in costs (difference £645, 95% confidence interval -£1381 to £2580) and quality-adjusted life-years (difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to -0.04) were small. Similar results were observed over the 4-year time horizon. At a threshold of willingness to pay for a gain of 1 QALY of £20,000, the probability of myomectomy being cost-effective is 98% at 2 years and 96% at 4 years. LIMITATIONS There were a substantial number of women who were not recruited because of their preference for a particular treatment option. CONCLUSIONS Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life than did uterine artery embolisation. The differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years are very small. Future research should involve women who are desiring pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN70772394. FUNDING This study 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. 26, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Daniels
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lee J Middleton
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Versha Cheed
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - William McKinnon
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Dikshyanta Rana
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Fusun Sirkeci
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK
| | - Isaac Manyonda
- Department of Gynaecology, St George's Hospital and Medical School, London, UK
| | - Anna-Maria Belli
- Department of Radiology, St George's Hospital and Medical School, London, UK
| | | | - Jonathan Moss
- School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Olivia Wu
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Klim McPherson
- Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Banister K, Cook JA, Scotland G, Azuara-Blanco A, Goulão B, Heimann H, Hernández R, Hogg R, Kennedy C, Sivaprasad S, Ramsay C, Chakravarthy U. Non-invasive testing for early detection of neovascular macular degeneration in unaffected second eyes of older adults: EDNA diagnostic accuracy study. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-142. [PMID: 35119357 DOI: 10.3310/vlfl1739] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neovascular age-related macular degeneration is a leading cause of sight loss, and early detection and treatment is important. For patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye, it is usual practice to monitor the unaffected eye. The test used to diagnose neovascular age-related macular degeneration, fundus fluorescein angiography, is an invasive test. Non-invasive tests are available, but their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic monitoring performance of tests for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The secondary objectives were the cost-effectiveness of tests and to identify predictive factors of developing neovascular age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN This was a multicentre, prospective, cohort, comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a monitoring setting for up to 3 years. A Cox regression risk prediction model and a Markov microsimulation model comparing cost-effectiveness of the index tests over 25 years were used. SETTING This took place in hospital eye services. PARTICIPANTS Participants were adults (aged 50-95 years) with newly diagnosed (within the previous 6 weeks) neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye and an unaffected second (study) eye who were attending for treatment injections in the first eye and who had a study eye baseline visual acuity of ≥ 68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. INTERVENTIONS The index tests were Amsler chart (completed by participants), fundus clinical examination, optical coherence tomography, self-reported vision assessment (completed by participants) and visual acuity. The reference standard was fundus fluorescein angiography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity; the performance of the risk predictor model; and costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS In total, 552 out of 578 patients who consented from 24 NHS hospitals (n = 16 ineligible; n = 10 withdrew consent) took part. The mean age of the patients was 77.4 years (standard deviation 7.7 years) and 57.2% were female. For the primary analysis, 464 patients underwent follow-up fundus fluorescein angiography and 120 developed neovascular age-related macular degeneration on fundus fluorescein angiography. The diagnostic accuracy [sensitivity (%) (95% confidence interval); specificity (%) (95% confidence interval)] was as follows: optical coherence tomography 91.7 (85.2 to 95.6); 87.8 (83.8 to 90.9)], fundus clinical examination [53.8 (44.8 to 62.5); 97.6 (95.3 to 98.9)], Amsler [33.7 (25.1 to 43.5); 81.4 (76.4 to 85.5)], visual acuity [30.0 (22.5 to 38.7); 66.3 (61.0 to 71.1)] and self-reported vision [4.2 (1.6 to 9.8); 97.0 (94.6 to 98.5)]. Optical coherence tomography had the highest sensitivity across all secondary analyses. The final prediction model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the non-affected eye included smoking status, family history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, the presence of nodular drusen with or without reticular pseudodrusen, and the presence of pigmentary abnormalities [c-statistic 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.71)]. Optical coherence tomography monitoring generated the greatest quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (optical coherence tomography, 5.830; fundus clinical examination, 5.787; Amsler chart, 5.736, self-reported vision, 5.630; and visual acuity, 5.600) for the lowest health-care and social care costs (optical coherence tomography, £19,406; fundus clinical examination, £19,649; Amsler chart, £19,751; self-reported vision, £20,198; and visual acuity, £20,444) over the lifetime of the simulated cohort. Optical coherence tomography dominated the other tests or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds (£20,000) across the scenarios explored. LIMITATIONS The diagnostic performance may be different in an unselected population without any history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration; the prediction model did not include genetic profile data, which might have improved the discriminatory performance. CONCLUSIONS Optical coherence tomography was the most accurate in diagnosing conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Economic modelling suggests that optical coherence tomography monitoring is cost-effective and leads to earlier diagnosis of and treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients being treated for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in their first eye. FUTURE WORK Future works should investigate the role of home monitoring, improved risk prediction models and impact on long-term visual outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION This study was registered as ISRCTN48855678. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie Banister
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Jonathan A Cook
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Graham Scotland
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.,Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Beatriz Goulão
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Heinrich Heimann
- Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Rodolfo Hernández
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Ruth Hogg
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Charlotte Kennedy
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Sobha Sivaprasad
- National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Craig Ramsay
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Roberts I, Shakur-Still H, Afolabi A, Akere A, Arribas M, Austin E, Bal K, Bazeer N, Beaumont D, Brenner A, Carrington L, Chaudhri R, Coats T, Gilmore I, Halligan K, Hussain I, Jairath V, Javaid K, Kayani A, Lisman T, Mansukhani R, Miners A, Mutti M, Nadeem MA, Pollok R, Prowse D, Simmons J, Stanworth S, Veitch A, Williams J. A high-dose 24-hour tranexamic acid infusion for the treatment of significant gastrointestinal bleeding: HALT-IT RCT. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-86. [PMID: 34663491 DOI: 10.3310/hta25580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and the risk of death in trauma patients. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that tranexamic acid decreases the number of deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding, but these meta-analyses are prone to selection bias. OBJECTIVE The trial provides reliable evidence of the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, rebleeding and complications in significant acute gastrointestinal bleeding. DESIGN A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic analysis. Patients were assigned by selecting one treatment pack from a box of eight, which were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The main analyses were by intention to treat. SETTING The setting was 164 hospitals in 15 countries, co-ordinated from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. PARTICIPANTS Adults with significant upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 12,009) were eligible if the responsible clinician was substantially uncertain about whether or not to use tranexamic acid. The clinical diagnosis of significant bleeding implied a risk of bleeding to death, including hypotension, tachycardia or signs of shock, or urgent transfusion, endoscopy or surgery. INTERVENTION Tranexamic acid (a 1-g loading dose over 10 minutes, then a 3-g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality; rebleeding; need for endoscopy, surgery or radiological intervention; blood product transfusion; complications; disability; and days spent in intensive care or a high-dependency unit. RESULTS A total of 12,009 patients were allocated to receive tranexamic acid (n = 5994, 49.9%) or the matching placebo (n = 6015, 50.1%), of whom 11,952 (99.5%) received the first dose. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (3.7%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (3.8%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18). Thromboembolic events occurred in 86 (1.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 72 (1.2%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.64). The risk of arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) was similar in both groups (0.7% in the tranexamic acid group vs. 0.8% in the placebo group; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.39), but the risk of venous thromboembolic events (deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) was higher in tranexamic acid-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (0.8% vs. 0.4%; risk ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.98). Seizures occurred in 38 patients who received tranexamic acid and in 22 patients who received placebo (0.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively; risk ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.93). In the base-case economic analysis, tranexamic acid was not cost-effective and resulted in slightly poorer health outcomes than no tranexamic acid. CONCLUSIONS Tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding and, although inexpensive, it is not cost-effective in adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. FUTURE WORK These results caution against a uniform approach to the management of patients with major haemorrhage and highlight the need for randomised trials targeted at specific pathophysiological processes. LIMITATIONS Although this is one of the largest randomised trials in gastrointestinal bleeding, we cannot rule out a modest increase or decrease in death due to bleeding with tranexamic acid. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01658124 and EudraCT 2012-003192-19. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian Roberts
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Adefemi Afolabi
- Department of Surgery, University College Hospital Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Adegboyega Akere
- Department of Medicine, University College Hospital Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Monica Arribas
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Emma Austin
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Kiran Bal
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Nuha Bazeer
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
| | - Danielle Beaumont
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Amy Brenner
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Laura Carrington
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Rizwana Chaudhri
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
| | - Timothy Coats
- Emergency Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
| | - Ian Gilmore
- Liverpool Centre for Alcohol Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Irshad Hussain
- Department of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
| | - Vipul Jairath
- Division of Gastroenterology, Western University and London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada
| | - Kiran Javaid
- Rawalpindi Medical University - Pakistan National Coordinating Centre (RMU-PNCC), Rawalpindi, Pakistan
| | - Aasia Kayani
- Rawalpindi Medical University - Pakistan National Coordinating Centre (RMU-PNCC), Rawalpindi, Pakistan
| | - Ton Lisman
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Raoul Mansukhani
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Alec Miners
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Muttiullah Mutti
- Department of Medicine, Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
| | - Muhammad Arif Nadeem
- Medical Unit III, Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Services Hospital Gastrointestinal, Lahore, Pakistan
| | - Richard Pollok
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department, St George's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Danielle Prowse
- Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Simmons
- Gastroenterology Department, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK
| | - Simon Stanworth
- Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.,Department of Haematology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK.,Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Andrew Veitch
- Gastroenterology Department, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - Jack Williams
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Stevenson M, Metry A, Messenger M. Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point of care tests for routine testing in residential care homes: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-74. [PMID: 34142943 PMCID: PMC8256324 DOI: 10.3310/hta25390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [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] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which at the time of writing (January 2021) was responsible for more than 2.25 million deaths worldwide and over 100,000 deaths in the UK. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in residential care homes. OBJECTIVE The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests in the setting of a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING The perspective was that of the NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Care homes with en suite rooms and with shared facilities were modelled separately. METHODS A discrete event simulation model was constructed to model individual residents and simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 once it had entered the residential care facility. The numbers of COVID-19-related deaths and critical cases were recorded in addition to the number of days spent in isolation. Thirteen strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests and for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Scenario analyses modelled early release from isolation based on receipt of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and the impact of vaccination. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. RESULTS Cost-effectiveness results depended on the proportion of residential care facilities penetrated by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with desirable target product profiles appear to have high net monetary benefit values. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with acceptable target product profiles had low net monetary benefit values because of unnecessary isolations. The benefit of allowing early release from isolation depended on whether or not the facility had en suite rooms. The greater the assumed efficacy of vaccination, the lower the net monetary benefit values associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, when assuming that a vaccine lowers the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. LIMITATIONS There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. Some degree of Monte Carlo sampling error persists because of the timelines of the project. The example care home simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly the cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests have considerable potential for benefit for use in residential care facilities, but whether or not this materialises depends on the diagnostic accuracy and costs of forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. FUTURE WORK More accurate results would be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of and the reduction in time to test result associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests when used in the context of residential care facilities, the proportion of care home penetrated by SARS-CoV-2 and the levels of immunity once vaccination is administered. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matt Stevenson
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andrew Metry
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Michael Messenger
- Personalised Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- NIHR Leeds Medtech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Smith GC, Moraitis AA, Wastlund D, Thornton JG, Papageorghiou A, Sanders J, Heazell AE, Robson SC, Sovio U, Brocklehurst P, Wilson EC. Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-190. [PMID: 33656977 PMCID: PMC7958245 DOI: 10.3310/hta25150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, pregnant women are screened using ultrasound to perform gestational aging, typically at around 12 weeks' gestation, and around the middle of pregnancy. Ultrasound scans thereafter are performed for clinical indications only. OBJECTIVES We sought to assess the case for offering universal late pregnancy ultrasound to all nulliparous women in the UK. The main questions addressed were the diagnostic effectiveness of universal late pregnancy ultrasound to predict adverse outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of either implementing universal ultrasound or conducting further research in this area. DESIGN We performed diagnostic test accuracy reviews of five ultrasonic measurements in late pregnancy. We conducted cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses of screening for fetal presentation, screening for small for gestational age fetuses and screening for large for gestational age fetuses. Finally, we conducted a survey and a focus group to determine the willingness of women to participate in a future randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2019. REVIEW METHODS The protocol for the review was designed a priori and registered. Eligible studies were identified using keywords, with no restrictions for language or location. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Health economic modelling employed a decision tree analysed via Monte Carlo simulation. Health outcomes were from the fetal perspective and presented as quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were from the perspective of the public sector, defined as NHS England, and the costs of special educational needs. All costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted by 3.5% per annum and the reference case time horizon was 20 years. RESULTS Umbilical artery Doppler flow velocimetry, cerebroplacental ratio, severe oligohydramnios and borderline oligohydramnios were all either non-predictive or weakly predictive of the risk of neonatal morbidity (summary positive likelihood ratios between 1 and 2) and were all weakly predictive of the risk of delivering a small for gestational age infant (summary positive likelihood ratios between 2 and 4). Suspicion of fetal macrosomia is strongly predictive of the risk of delivering a large infant, but it is only weakly, albeit statistically significantly, predictive of the risk of shoulder dystocia. Very few studies blinded the result of the ultrasound scan and most studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias as a result of treatment paradox, ascertainment bias or iatrogenic harm. Health economic analysis indicated that universal ultrasound for fetal presentation only may be both clinically and economically justified on the basis of existing evidence. Universal ultrasound including fetal biometry was of borderline cost-effectiveness and was sensitive to assumptions. Value-of-information analysis indicated that the parameter that had the largest impact on decision uncertainty was the net difference in cost between an induced delivery and expectant management. LIMITATIONS The primary literature on the diagnostic effectiveness of ultrasound in late pregnancy is weak. Value-of-information analysis may have underestimated the uncertainty in the literature as it was focused on the internal validity of parameters, which is quantified, whereas the greatest uncertainty may be in the external validity to the research question, which is unquantified. CONCLUSIONS Universal screening for presentation at term may be justified on the basis of current knowledge. The current literature does not support universal ultrasonic screening for fetal growth disorders. FUTURE WORK We describe proof-of-principle randomised controlled trials that could better inform the case for screening using ultrasound in late pregnancy. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017064093. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gordon Cs Smith
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alexandros A Moraitis
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - David Wastlund
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jim G Thornton
- Division of Child Health, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Aris Papageorghiou
- Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Sanders
- School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Alexander Ep Heazell
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Stephen C Robson
- Reproductive and Vascular Biology Group, The Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Ulla Sovio
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Peter Brocklehurst
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Edward Cf Wilson
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Cook JA, Baldwin M, Cooper C, Nagra NS, Crocker JC, Glaze M, Greenall G, Rangan A, Kottam L, Rees JL, Farrar-Hockley D, Merritt N, Hopewell S, Beard D, Thomas M, Dritsaki M, Carr AJ. Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-138. [PMID: 33646096 PMCID: PMC7958078 DOI: 10.3310/hta25130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). OBJECTIVES The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. DESIGN A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. METHODS The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6. RESULTS The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. LIMITATIONS The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. FUTURE WORK Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. STUDY REGISTRATION The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mathew Baldwin
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Cushla Cooper
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Navraj S Nagra
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Joanna C Crocker
- Health Experiences Research Group, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - Molly Glaze
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Gemma Greenall
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Amar Rangan
- The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Lucksy Kottam
- The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Jonathan L Rees
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Dair Farrar-Hockley
- Patient representative, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Naomi Merritt
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sally Hopewell
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Melina Dritsaki
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Andrew J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Batchelor JM, Thomas KS, Akram P, Azad J, Bewley A, Chalmers JR, Cheung ST, Duley L, Eleftheriadou V, Ellis R, Ferguson A, Goulding JM, Haines RH, Hamad H, Ingram JR, Laguda B, Leighton P, Levell N, Makrygeorgou A, Meakin GD, Millington A, Ogboli M, Rajasekaran A, Ravenscroft JC, Rogers A, Sach TH, Santer M, Stainforth J, Tan W, Wahie S, White J, Whitton ME, Williams HC, Wright A, Montgomery AA. Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-128. [PMID: 33245043 PMCID: PMC7750863 DOI: 10.3310/hta24640] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
|
17
|
Webb NJ, Woolley RL, Lambe T, Frew E, Brettell EA, Barsoum EN, Trompeter RS, Cummins C, Wheatley K, Ives NJ. Sixteen-week versus standard eight-week prednisolone therapy for childhood nephrotic syndrome: the PREDNOS RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019; 23:1-108. [PMID: 31156083 DOI: 10.3310/hta23260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal corticosteroid regimen for treating the presenting episode of steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) remains uncertain. Most UK centres use an 8-week regimen, despite previous systematic reviews indicating that longer regimens reduce the risk of relapse and frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (FRNS). OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to determine whether or not an extended 16-week course of prednisolone increases the time to first relapse. The secondary objectives were to compare the relapse rate, FRNS and steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome (SDNS) rates, requirement for alternative immunosuppressive agents and corticosteroid-related adverse events (AEs), including adverse behaviour and costs. DESIGN Randomised double-blind parallel-group placebo-controlled trial, including a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING One hundred and twenty-five UK paediatric departments. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and thirty-seven children presenting with a first episode of SSNS. Participants aged between 1 and 15 years were randomised (1 : 1) according to a minimisation algorithm to ensure balance of ethnicity (South Asian, white or other) and age (≤ 5 or ≥ 6 years). INTERVENTIONS The control group (n = 118) received standard course (SC) prednisolone therapy: 60 mg/m2/day of prednisolone in weeks 1-4, 40 mg/m2 of prednisolone on alternate days in weeks 5-8 and matching placebo on alternate days in weeks 9-18 (total 2240 mg/m2). The intervention group (n = 119) received extended course (EC) prednisolone therapy: 60 mg/m2/day of prednisolone in weeks 1-4; started at 60 mg/m2 of prednisolone on alternate days in weeks 5-16, tapering by 10 mg/m2 every 2 weeks (total 3150 mg/m2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was time to first relapse [Albustix® (Siemens Healthcare Limited, Frimley, UK)-positive proteinuria +++ or greater for 3 consecutive days or the presence of generalised oedema plus +++ proteinuria]. The secondary outcome measures were relapse rate, incidence of FRNS and SDNS, other immunosuppressive therapy use, rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and AEs and the incidence of behavioural change [using Achenbach Child Behaviour Checklist (ACBC)]. A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The analysis was by intention to treat. Participants were followed for a minimum of 24 months. RESULTS There was no significant difference in time to first relapse between the SC and EC groups (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.17; log-rank p = 0.3). There were also no differences in the incidence of FRNS (SC 50% vs. EC 53%; p = 0.7), SDNS (44% vs. 42%; p = 0.8) or requirement for other immunosuppressive therapy (56% vs. 54%; p = 0.8). The total prednisolone dose received following completion of study medication was 5475 mg vs. 6674 mg (p = 0.07). SAE rates were not significantly different (25% vs. 17%; p = 0.1) and neither were AEs, except poor behaviour (yes/no), which was less frequent with EC treatment. There were no differences in ACBC scores. EC therapy was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit [0.0162 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and cost savings (£4369 vs. £2696). LIMITATIONS Study drug formulation may have prevented some younger children who were unable to swallow whole or crushed tablets from participating. CONCLUSIONS This trial has not shown any clinical benefit for EC prednisolone therapy in UK children. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that EC therapy may be cheaper, with the possibility of a small QALY benefit. FUTURE WORK Studies investigating EC versus SC therapy in younger children and further cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16645249 and EudraCT 2010-022489-29. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas Ja Webb
- Department of Paediatric Nephrology, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - Rebecca L Woolley
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tosin Lambe
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Emma Frew
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Emma N Barsoum
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Carole Cummins
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Keith Wheatley
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Natalie J Ives
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Trenaman L, Boonen A, Guillemin F, Hiligsmann M, Hoens A, Marra C, Taylor W, Barton J, Tugwell P, Wells G, Bansback N. OMERACT Quality-adjusted Life-years (QALY) Working Group: Do Current QALY Measures Capture What Matters to Patients? J Rheumatol 2017; 44:1899-1903. [PMID: 28298567 DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.161112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/25/2017] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To understand the limitations with current patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) used to generate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in rheumatology, and set a research agenda. METHODS Two activities were undertaken. The first was a scoping review of published studies that have used PROM to generate QALY in rheumatology between 2011 and 2016. The second was an interactive "eyeball test" exercise at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 13 that compared subdomains of widely used generic PROM, as identified through the scoping review, to subdomains of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis Health Index (ASAS-HI) condition-specific PROM for ankylosing spondylitis. RESULTS The scoping review included 39 studies. Five different PROM have been used to generate QALY in rheumatology; however, the EQ-5D and Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D) were used most frequently (in 32 and 9 of included studies, respectively). Special interest group participants identified energy/drive and sleep as 2 key subdomains of the ASAS-HI instrument that may be missed by the EQ-5D, and sexual function as potentially missed by the SF-6D. Participants also expressed concerns that aspects of the process of care and non-health outcomes may be missed. Three ways of incorporating additional subdomains were discussed, including using an alternative generic PROM, modifying an existing generic PROM with "bolt-on" subdomain(s), and generating societal weights for a condition-specific PROM. CONCLUSION Three priorities for future research were identified: understanding whether the EQ-5D and SF-6D identify what matters to patients with different rheumatic conditions, analyzing how much patients value process or non-health outcomes, and identifying which approaches to incorporating a greater number of subdomains into the QALY are being undertaken in other disease areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Logan Trenaman
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Annelies Boonen
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Francis Guillemin
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Mickael Hiligsmann
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Alison Hoens
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Carlo Marra
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Will Taylor
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Jennifer Barton
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Peter Tugwell
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - George Wells
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital
| | - Nick Bansback
- From the School of Population and Public Health, and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia; School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. .,L. Trenaman, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital; A. Boonen, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Graduate School, CAPHRI, Maastricht University; F. Guillemin, MD, PhD, Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, EA 4360 APEMAC; M. Hiligsmann, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI; A. Hoens, BScPT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Arthritis Patient Advisory Board, Arthritis Research Canada; C. Marra, PharmD, PhD, School of Pharmacy, Memorial University; W. Taylor, MBChB, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM, Department of Medicine, University of Otago; J. Barton, MD, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; P. Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; G. Wells, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; N. Bansback, PhD, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Stevenson MD, Wailoo AJ, Tosh JC, Hernandez-Alava M, Gibson LA, Stevens JW, Archer RJ, Simpson EL, Hock ES, Young A, Scott DL. The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate. J Rheumatol 2017; 44:973-980. [PMID: 28202743 DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.160941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/16/2016] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To ascertain whether strategies of treatment with a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) are cost-effective in an English setting. Results are presented for those patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and those with severe RA. METHODS An economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 7 bDMARD was developed. A systematic literature review and network metaanalysis was undertaken to establish relative clinical effectiveness. The results were used to populate the model, together with estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score following European League Against Rheumatism response; annual costs, and utility, per HAQ band; trajectory of HAQ for patients taking bDMARD; and trajectory of HAQ for patients using nonbiologic therapy (NBT). Results were presented as those associated with the strategy with the median cost-effectiveness. Supplementary analyses were undertaken assessing the change in cost-effectiveness when only patients with the most severe prognoses taking NBT were provided with bDMARD treatment. The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were compared with reported thresholds from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of £20,000 to £30,000 (US$24,700 to US$37,000). RESULTS In the primary analyses, the cost per QALY of a bDMARD strategy was £41,600 for patients with severe RA and £51,100 for those with moderate to severe RA. Under the supplementary analyses, the cost per QALY fell to £25,300 for those with severe RA and to £28,500 for those with moderate to severe RA. CONCLUSION The cost-effectiveness of bDMARD in RA in England is questionable and only meets current accepted levels in subsets of patients with the worst prognoses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matt D Stevenson
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. .,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
| | - Allan J Wailoo
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Jonathan C Tosh
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Monica Hernandez-Alava
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Laura A Gibson
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - John W Stevens
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Rachel J Archer
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Emma L Simpson
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Emma S Hock
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Adam Young
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - David L Scott
- From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,M.D. Stevenson, PhD, Professor of Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A.J. Wailoo, PhD, Professor of Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.C. Tosh, PhD, Research Fellow in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; M. Hernandez-Alava, PhD, Senior Research Fellow in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; L.A. Gibson, PhD, Research Associate in Econometrics, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; J.W. Stevens, PhD, Reader in Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; R.J. Archer, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; E.L. Simpson, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, E.S. Hock, PhD, Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; A. Young, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire; D.L. Scott, MD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| |
Collapse
|