Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis

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.

Cabozantinib and vandetanib for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival. Cabozantinib (Cometriq^®; Ipsen, Paris, France) and vandetanib (Caprelsa^®; Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA) are currently the treatment modality of choice for treating unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. (2) To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib versus each other and best supportive care. (3) To identify key areas for primary research. (4) To estimate the overall cost of these treatments in England.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed publications (searched from inception to November 2016), European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review [including a network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified two placebo-controlled trials. The Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with unresectable locally advanced, metastatic and progressive MTC. The ZETA trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Both drugs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) more than the placebo (p < 0.001). The NMA suggested that, within the symptomatic and progressive MTC population, the effects on PFS were similar (vandetanib vs. cabozantinib: hazard ratio 1.14, 95% credible interval 0.41 to 3.09). Neither trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for cabozantinib or vandetanib versus placebo, although data from ZETA were subject to potential confounding. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib demonstrated significantly better objective response rates and calcitonin (CTN) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response rates than placebo. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. The assessment group model indicates that, within the EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within the restricted EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC with CEA/CTN doubling times of ≤ 24 months), the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. The maximum annual budget impact within the symptomatic and progressive population is estimated to be ≈£2.35M for cabozantinib and ≈£5.53M for vandetanib. The costs of vandetanib in the restricted EU-label population are expected to be lower.

LIMITATIONS

The intention-to-treat populations of the EXAM and ZETA trials are notably different. The analyses of ZETA subgroups may be subject to confounding as a result of differences in baseline characteristics and open-label vandetanib use. Attempts to statistically adjust for treatment switching were unsuccessful. No HRQoL evidence was identified for the MTC population.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified trials suggest that cabozantinib and vandetanib improve PFS more than the placebo; however, significant OS benefits were not demonstrated. The economic analyses indicate that within the EU-label population, the ICERs for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per QALY gained. Within the restricted EU-label population, the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained.

FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES

(1) Primary research assessing the long-term effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib within relevant subgroups. (2) Reanalyses of the ZETA trial to investigate the impact of adjusting for open-label vandetanib use using appropriate statistical methods. (3) Studies assessing the impact of MTC on HRQoL.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016050403.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Adherence to Antitumor Necrosis Factor Use Recommendations in Spondyloarthritis: Measurement and Effect in the DESIR Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a classification system to define adherence to axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) use recommendations and examine the effect of adherence on outcomes in the DESIR cohort (Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifférenciées Récentes).

METHODS

Using alternate definitions of adherence, patients were classified as adherent "timely" anti-TNF users, nonadherent "late" anti-TNF users, adherent nonusers ("no anti-TNF need"), non-adherent nonusers ("unmet anti-TNF need"). Multivariate models were fitted to examine the effect of adherence on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), total costs, and nonbiologic costs 1 year following an index date. Generalized linear regression models assuming a γ-distribution with log link were used for costs outcomes and linear regression models for QALY outcomes.

RESULTS

Using the main definition of adherence, there were no significant differences between late anti-TNF users and timely anti-TNF users in total costs (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54-1.36, p = 0.516) or nonbiologic costs (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44-1.18, p = 0.187). However, in the sensitivity analysis, late anti-TNF users had significantly increased nonbiologic costs compared with timely users (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.36, p = 0.026). In the main analysis, there were no significant differences in QALY between timely anti-TNF users and late anti-TNF users, or between timely users and patients with unmet anti-TNF need. In the sensitivity analysis, patients with unmet anti-TNF need had significantly lower QALY than timely anti-TNF users (-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The effect of adherence to anti-TNF recommendations on outcomes was sensitive to the definition of adherence used, highlighting the need to validate methods to measure adherence.