Interventional management of hyperhidrosis in secondary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hyperhidrosis is uncontrollable excessive sweating, which occurs at rest, regardless of temperature. The symptoms of hyperhidrosis can significantly affect quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and safety of treatments available in secondary care for the management of primary hyperhidrosis.

METHODS

Fifteen databases (including trial registers) were searched to July 2016 to identify studies of secondary-care treatments for primary hyperhidrosis. For each intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included where available; where RCT evidence was lacking, nonrandomized trials or large prospective case series were included. Outcomes of interest included disease severity, sweat rate, quality of life, patient satisfaction and adverse events. Trial quality was assessed using a modified version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results were pooled in pairwise meta-analyses where appropriate, otherwise a narrative synthesis was presented.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the review: 32 RCTs, 17 nonrandomized trials and one case series. The studies varied in terms of population, intervention and methods of outcome assessment. Most studies were small, at high risk of bias and poorly reported. The interventions assessed were iontophoresis, botulinum toxin (BTX) injections, anticholinergic medications, curettage and newer energy-based technologies that damage the sweat gland.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of treatments for primary hyperhidrosis is limited overall, and few firm conclusions can be drawn. However, there is moderate-quality evidence to support the use of BTX for axillary hyperhidrosis. A trial comparing BTX with iontophoresis for palmar hyperhidrosis is warranted.

Simple tests for the diagnosis of childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

There is a need to accurately quantify levels of adiposity in order to identify overweight and obesity in children. This systematic review aimed to identify all diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating simple tests for obesity and adiposity, including body mass index (BMI), skin-fold thickness and waist circumference, compared against high-quality reference tests. Twenty-four cohort studies including 25,807 children were included. BMI had good performance when diagnosing obesity: a sensitivity of 81.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.0 to 93.8) for a specificity of 96.0% (95% CI: 93.8 to 98.1). It was less effective at diagnosing overweight (sensitivity: 76.3%, 95% CI: 70.2 to 82.4; specificity: 92.1% 95% CI: 90.0 to 94.3). When diagnosing obesity, waist circumference had similar performance (sensitivity: 83.8%; specificity: 96.5%). Skin-fold thickness had slightly poorer performance (sensitivity: 72.5%; specificity: 93.7%). Few studies considered any other tests. There was no conclusive evidence that any test was generally superior to the others. BMI is a good simple diagnostic test for identifying childhood adiposity. It identifies most genuinely obese and adipose children while misclassifying only a small number as obese. There was no conclusive evidence that any test should be preferred to BMI, and the extra complexity of skin-fold thickness tests does not appear to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Predicting adult obesity from childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the ability of simple measures of childhood obesity such as body mass index (BMI) to predict future obesity in adolescence and adulthood. Large cohort studies, which measured obesity both in childhood and in later adolescence or adulthood, using any recognized measure of obesity were sought. Study quality was assessed. Studies were pooled using diagnostic meta-analysis methods. Fifteen prospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. BMI was the only measure of obesity reported in any study, with 200,777 participants followed up. Obese children and adolescents were around five times more likely to be obese in adulthood than those who were not obese. Around 55% of obese children go on to be obese in adolescence, around 80% of obese adolescents will still be obese in adulthood and around 70% will be obese over age 30. Therefore, action to reduce and prevent obesity in these adolescents is needed. However, 70% of obese adults were not obese in childhood or adolescence, so targeting obesity reduction solely at obese or overweight children needs to be considered carefully as this may not substantially reduce the overall burden of adult obesity.

Childhood obesity as a predictor of morbidity in adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Obese children are at higher risk of being obese as adults, and adult obesity is associated with an increased risk of morbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the ability of childhood body mass index (BMI) to predict obesity-related morbidities in adulthood. Thirty-seven studies were included. High childhood BMI was associated with an increased incidence of adult diabetes (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.30-2.22), coronary heart disease (CHD) (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.10-1.31) and a range of cancers, but not stroke or breast cancer. The accuracy of childhood BMI when predicting any adult morbidity was low. Only 31% of future diabetes and 22% of future hypertension and CHD occurred in children aged 12 or over classified as being overweight or obese. Only 20% of all adult cancers occurred in children classified as being overweight or obese. Childhood obesity is associated with moderately increased risks of adult obesity-related morbidity, but the increase in risk is not large enough for childhood BMI to be a good predictor of the incidence of adult morbidities. This is because the majority of adult obesity-related morbidity occurs in adults who were of healthy weight in childhood. Therefore, targeting obesity reduction solely at obese or overweight children may not substantially reduce the overall burden of obesity-related disease in adulthood.

Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Allergic asthma is a long-term disorder of the airways resulting from overexpression of immunoglobulin E (IgE) in response to environmental allergens. Patients with poorly controlled asthma are at high risk of exacerbations requiring additional treatment, including hospitalisations. Severe exacerbations are potentially life threatening. Guidelines identify five treatment steps for both adults and children. Omalizumab (Xolair(®)) is a recombinant DNA-derived humanised monoclonal antibody indicated as an add-on therapy in patients aged ≥ 6 years with severe persistent allergic asthma uncontrolled at treatment step 4 or 5.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, as an add-on therapy to standard care, within its licensed indication, compared with standard therapy alone for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years and children aged 6-11 years.

DATA SOURCES

Eleven electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and additional sources including regulatory agency reports were searched from inception to October 2011. Additional data sources include: the manufacturer's submission (MS); two previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) submissions; and existing reviews on the safety of omalizumab and oral corticosteroids (OCSs).

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence for omalizumab were performed. The primary outcome was number of clinically significant (CS) exacerbations. Other outcomes included asthma symptoms, unscheduled health-care use, asthma-related mortality, OCS use and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Because of methodological and clinical heterogeneity between trials, a narrative synthesis was applied. Pragmatic reviews with best evidence syntheses were used to assess adverse events of omalizumab and OCSs. The cost-effectiveness of omalizumab was assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS in the two separate populations: adults and adolescents, and children, using a cohort Markov model. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results are presented for additional subgroup populations: (1) hospitalised for asthma in the previous year, (2) adults and adolescents on maintenance OCSs and (3) three or more exacerbations in the previous year.

RESULTS

Eleven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 observational studies were identified, including four RCTs/subgroups in the adult licensed population and one subgroup in children. A minority of patients were on maintenance OCSs. No evidence comparing omalizumab with OCSs was identified. Omalizumab significantly reduced the incidence of CS exacerbations in both adults and children [adults: INvestigatioN of Omalizumab in seVere Asthma Trial (INNOVATE): rate ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; children IA-05 EUP (the a priori subgroup of patients who met the European Medicines Agency license criteria) 0.66; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00]. Significant benefits were observed for a range of other outcomes in adults. Subgroup evidence showed benefits in adults on maintenance OCSs. Evidence for an OCS-sparing effect of omalizumab was limited but consistent. Omalizumab is available as 75 mg and 150 mg prefilled syringes at prices of £128.07 and £256.15 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adults and adolescents is £83,822 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, whereas the ICER for children is £78,009 per QALY gained. The results are similar for the subgroup population of ≥ 3 exacerbations in the previous year, whereas the ICER for the other subgroup populations are lower; £46,431 for the hospitalisation subgroup in adults and adolescents, £44,142 for the hospitalisation subgroup in children and £50,181 for the maintenance OCS subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab reduces the incidence of CS exacerbations in adults and children, with benefits on other outcomes in adults. Limited, underpowered subgroup evidence exists that omalizumab reduces exacerbations and OCS requirements in adults on OCSs. Evidence in children is weaker and more uncertain. The ICERs are above conventional NHS thresholds of cost-effectiveness. The key drivers of cost-effectiveness are asthma-related mortality risk and, to a lesser extent, HRQoL improvement and OCS-related adverse effects. An adequately powered double-blind RCT in both adults and children on maintenance OCSs and an individual patient data meta-analysis of existing trials should be considered. A registry of all patients on omalizumab should be established.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001625.

FUNDING

This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme on behalf of NICE as project number HTA 10/128/01.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery: a systematic review and decision-analytical model

BACKGROUND

For patients who continue to have seizures despite ongoing treatment, surgical resection of the epileptic focus may be considered, and can result in seizure-freedom. Currently, non-invasive tests provide information to inform the scope and positioning of invasive electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes. However, these technologies could replace intracranial EEG in at least some patients if their ability to accurately locate a seizure focus could be established. In order to inform clinical practice, studies need to investigate the clinical value of a test, and the impact of the results of that test on the decision-making process and subsequently on clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this systematic review were to determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive technologies, how these technologies impact on the decision-making process, associations with surgical outcome, and the gaps in the current evidence base. In addition, a decision-analytical model was designed to consider the potential use of existing data to determine the cost-effectiveness of options for presurgical work-up.

DATA SOURCES

Eighteen electronic databases were searched without language restrictions [including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, PASCAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Studies] from 2003 to July 2010. A prior, wider-ranging HTA review in this area conducted by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was used as the source for studies prior to 2003. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched, and a citation search of key papers undertaken.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive technologies used to define the seizure focus in patients with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery were undertaken according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Thirteen diagnostic accuracy studies, seven outcome prediction studies and one study reporting the impact of test results on the decision-making process ('decision study') were included. The decision study was used to aid the development of a decision-analytical model to illustrate how data from appropriately designed clinical studies can be utilised.

RESULTS

Data from the diagnostic accuracy studies could not determine the contribution of the tests to the decision-making process. The number of index tests that could not be classified as correctly, non- or wrongly localising as indicated by a surgical outcome was high, up to 53%. The decision study reported fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography influencing the decision for or against surgery in 78 of the 110 patients. The constructed decision-analytical model provided provisional cost-effectiveness results from the included diagnostic strategies. It demonstrated the feasibility of extending such analysis to all diagnostic strategies if suitable data were to become available.

LIMITATIONS

There were a number of limitations of the available evidence, and overall, the quality of the available evidence was poor; only one study met the inclusion criteria that evaluated the use an index test on the decision-making process. Most of the available data was from the diagnostic accuracy studies; those currently available did not provide information on either the diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility of the tests being evaluated. Further limitations were the generally small study sizes, patient selection bias and the substantial clinical heterogeneity across the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base is abundant but not adequately informative; there is no acceptable reference standard, reporting of clinical outcomes tends to be only following surgery, and decision level and clinical effectiveness studies are lacking. The additional value of diagnostic technologies for the localisation of epileptic foci is related to the impact on treatment decisions and the value of the treatments themselves; this needs to be considered fully in informing cost-effectiveness. Appropriately designed studies are needed to determine the added value of diagnostic regimens. Ultimately, how research informs the actual decision problem(s) faced by clinicians and the NHS needs to be considered; decision modelling is central to this issue.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

EOS is a biplane X-ray imaging system manufactured by EOS Imaging (formerly Biospace Med, Paris, France). It uses slot-scanning technology to produce a high-quality image with less irradiation than standard imaging techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EOS two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) X-ray imaging system for the evaluation and monitoring of scoliosis and other relevant orthopaedic conditions.

DATA SOURCES

For the systematic review of EOS, electronic databases (MEDLINE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, BIOSIS Previews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Inspec, ISI Science Citation Index and PASCAL), clinical trials registries and the manufacturer's website were searched from 1993 to November 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of studies comparing EOS with standard X-ray [film, computed radiography (CR) or digital radiography] in any orthopaedic condition was performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of EOS in the relevant indications compared with standard X-ray and incorporated the clinical effectiveness of EOS and the adverse effects of radiation. The model incorporated a lifetime horizon to estimate outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs from the perspective of the NHS.

RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two studies compared EOS with film X-ray and one study compared EOS with CR. The three included studies were small and of limited quality. One study used an earlier version of the technology, the Charpak system. Both studies comparing EOS with film X-ray found image quality to be comparable or better with EOS overall. Radiation dose was considerably lower with EOS: ratio of means for posteroanterior spine was 5.2 (13.1 for the study using the Charpak system); ratio of means for the lateral spine was 6.2 (15.1 for the study using the Charpak system). The study comparing EOS with CR found image quality to be comparable or better with EOS. Radiation dose was considerably lower with EOS than CR; ratio of means for the centre of the back was 5.9 and for the proximal lateral point 8.8. The lowest ratio of means was at the nape of the neck, which was 2.9. No other outcomes were assessed in the included studies, such as implications for patient management from the nature and quality of the image. Patient throughput is the major determinant of the cost-effectiveness of EOS. The average cost per procedure of EOS decreases with utilisation. Using estimates of patient throughput at national level from Hospital Episode Statistics data suggests that EOS is not cost-effective for the indications considered. Throughput in the region of 15,100 to 26,500 (corresponding to a workload of 60 to 106 patient appointments per working day) for EOS compared with a throughput of only 7530 for CR (30 patient appointments per working day) is needed to achieve an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000 per QALY. EOS can be shown to be cost-effective only when compared with CR if the utilisation for EOS is about double the utilisation of CR.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of the systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS was the limited number and quality of the data available. In particular, there were no studies assessing the potential health benefits arising from the quality and nature of the image, over and above those associated with reduced radiation exposure. Uncertainty in the model inputs was not fully explored owing to a lack of reporting of standard deviations or confidence intervals in the published literature for most of the parameters. As a result, uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results was not presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation dose is considerably lower with EOS than standard X-ray, whereas image quality remains comparable or better with EOS. However, the long-term health benefits from reduced radiation exposure with EOS are very small and there was a lack of data on other potential patient health benefits. The implications of any changes in the quality and nature of the EOS image compared with standard X-ray, for patient health outcomes, needs to be assessed. Given the higher cost of an EOS machine, utilisation is the major determinant of cost-effectiveness. Estimates of patient throughput at national level suggest that EOS is not cost-effective.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

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

Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the use of golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a single phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT: GO-REVEAL) that compared golimumab with placebo for treating patients with active and progressive PsA who were symptomatic despite the use of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The 14-week data showed that, compared with placebo, golimumab 50 mg significantly improved joint disease response as measured by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 [relative risk (RR) 5.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 10.56] and Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) (RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.49 to 4.87), and skin disease response as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (RR 15.95, 95% CI 4.62 to 59.11). The 24-week absolute data showed that these treatment benefits were maintained. There was a significant improvement in patients' functional status as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) change from baseline at 24 weeks (-0.33, p < 0.001). The open-label extension data showed that these beneficial effects were also maintained at 52 and 104 weeks. However, PASI 50 and PASI 90 at 14 weeks, and all of the PASI outcomes at 24 weeks, were not performed on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, analyses of the 24-week data were less robust, failing to adjust for treatment contamination due to patient crossover at week 16. The manufacturer conducted a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) analysis. The ERG considered the assumption of exchangeability between the trials for the purpose of the MTC analysis to be acceptable, and the statistical approach in the MTC analysis to be reliable. Regarding the safety evaluation of golimumab, the manufacturer failed to provide longer-term data or to consider adverse event data of golimumab from controlled studies in other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Although the adverse effect profile of golimumab appears similar to other anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents, the longer-term safety profile of golimumab remains uncertain. The manufacturer's submission presented a decision model to compare etanercept, infliximab, golimumab and adalimumab versus palliative care for patients with PsA. In the base-case model, 73% of the cohort of patients were assumed to have significant psoriasis (> 3% of body surface area). Estimates of the effectiveness of anti-TNF agents in terms of PsARC, HAQ change and PASI change were obtained from an MTC analysis of RCT data. The manufacturer failed to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) correctly by comparing golimumab with palliative care instead of the most cost-effective alternative (etanercept). Despite the manufacturer's claim that golimumab is a cost-effective treatment option, the manufacturer's own model showed that golimumab is not cost-effective compared with other biologics when the ICERs are correctly calculated. None of the sensitivity analyses carried out by the manufacturer or the ERG regarding uncertainty in the estimates of clinical effectiveness, the acquisition and administration cost of drugs, the cost of treating psoriasis and the utility functions estimated to generate health outcomes changed this conclusion. However, a key area in determining the cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF agents is whether they should be treated as a class. If all anti-TNF agents are considered equally effective then etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab have very nearly equal costs and equal quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and all have an ICER of about £ 15,000 per QALY versus palliative care, whereas infliximab with a higher acquisition cost is dominated by the other biologics.

Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab are licensed in the UK for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in adults who have an inadequate response to standard treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of these biologic agents in the treatment of active and progressive PsA.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic reviews were performed, with data sought from 10 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database and EconLit) up to June 2009.

REVIEW METHODS

Full paper manuscripts of titles/abstracts considered relevant were obtained and assessed for inclusion by two reviewers according to criteria on study design, interventions, participants and outcomes. Data on study and participant characteristics, efficacy outcomes, adverse effects, costs to the health service and cost-effectiveness were extracted, along with baseline data where reported. The primary efficacy outcomes were measures of anti-inflammatory response, skin lesion response and functional status, and the safety outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary measure of cost-effectiveness was incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Standard meta-analytic techniques were applied to efficacy data. Published cost-effectiveness studies and the economic analyses submitted to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) by the biologic manufacturers were reviewed. An economic model was developed by updating the model produced by the York Assessment Group for the previous NICE appraisal of biologics in PsA.

RESULTS

Pooled estimates of effect demonstrated a significant improvement in patients with PsA for all joint disease and functional status outcomes at 12-14 weeks' follow-up. The biologic treatment significantly reduced joint symptoms for etanercept [relative risk (RR) 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96 to 3.45], infliximab (RR 3.44, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.69) and adalimumab (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.88), with 24-week data demonstrating maintained treatment effects. Trial data demonstrated a significant effect of all three biologics on skin disease at 12 or 24 weeks. Evidence synthesis found that infliximab appeared to be most effective across all outcomes of joint and skin disease. The response in joint disease was greater with etanercept than with adalimumab, whereas the response in skin disease was greater with adalimumab than with etanercept, although these differences are not statistically significant. Under base-case assumptions, etanercept was the most likely cost-effective strategy for patients with PsA and mild-to-moderate psoriasis if the threshold for cost-effectiveness was £20,000 or £30,000 per QALY. All biologics had a similar probability of being cost-effective for patients with PsA and moderate-to-severe psoriasis at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Limited available efficacy data and difficulty in assessing PsA activity and its response to biologic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicated that etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab were efficacious in the treatment of PsA compared with placebo, with beneficial effects on joint symptoms, functional status and skin. Short-term data suggested that these biologic agents can delay joint disease progression and evidence to support their use in the treatment of PsA is convincing. Future research would benefit from long-term observational studies with large sample sizes of patients with PsA to demonstrate that beneficial effects are maintained, along with further monitoring of the safety profiles of the biologic agents.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the use of golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a single phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT: GO-REVEAL) that compared golimumab with placebo for treating patients with active and progressive PsA who were symptomatic despite the use of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The 14-week data showed that, compared with placebo, golimumab 50 mg significantly improved joint disease response as measured by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 [relative risk (RR) 5.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 10.56] and Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) (RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.49 to 4.87), and skin disease response as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (RR 15.95, 95% CI 4.62 to 59.11). The 24-week absolute data showed that these treatment benefits were maintained. There was a significant improvement in patients’ functional status as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) change from baseline at 24 weeks (–0.33, p < 0.001). The open-label extension data showed that these beneficial effects were also maintained at 52 and 104 weeks. However, PASI 50 and PASI 90 at 14 weeks, and all of the PASI outcomes at 24 weeks, were not performed on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, analyses of the 24-week data were less robust, failing to adjust for treatment contamination due to patient crossover at week 16. The manufacturer conducted a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) analysis. The ERG considered the assumption of exchangeability between the trials for the purpose of the MTC analysis to be acceptable, and the statistical approach in the MTC analysis to be reliable. Regarding the safety evaluation of golimumab, the manufacturer failed to provide longer-term data or to consider adverse event data of golimumab from controlled studies in other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Although the adverse effect profile of golimumab appears similar to other anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents, the longer-term safety profile of golimumab remains uncertain. The manufacturer’s submission presented a decision model to compare etanercept, infliximab, golimumab and adalimumab versus palliative care for patients with PsA. In the base-case model, 73% of the cohort of patients were assumed to have significant psoriasis (> 3% of body surface area). Estimates of the effectiveness of anti-TNF agents in terms of PsARC, HAQ change and PASI change were obtained from an MTC analysis of RCT data. The manufacturer failed to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) correctly by comparing golimumab with palliative care instead of the most cost-effective alternative (etanercept). Despite the manufacturer’s claim that golimumab is a cost-effective treatment option, the manufacturer’s own model showed that golimumab is not cost-effective compared with other biologics when the ICERs are correctly calculated. None of the sensitivity analyses carried out by the manufacturer or the ERG regarding uncertainty in the estimates of clinical effectiveness, the acquisition and administration cost of drugs, the cost of treating psoriasis and the utility functions estimated to generate health outcomes changed this conclusion. However, a key area in determining the cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF agents is whether they should be treated as a class. If all anti-TNF agents are considered equally effective then etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab have very nearly equal costs and equal quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and all have an ICER of about £15,000 per QALY versus palliative care, whereas infliximab with a higher acquisition cost is dominated by the other biologics.

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

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

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The population considered in the submission were adult clinically stable patients with a recent history of or current non-permanent AF. Comparators were the current available anti-arrhythmic drugs: class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone), sotalol and amiodarone. Outcomes were AF recurrence, all-cause mortality, stroke, treatment discontinuations (due to any cause or due to adverse events) and serious adverse events. The main evidence came from four phase III randomised controlled trials, direct and indirect meta-analyses from a systematic review, and a synthesis of the direct and indirect evidence using a mixed-treatment comparison. Overall, the results from the different synthesis approaches showed that the odds of AF recurrence appeared statistically significantly lower with dronedarone and other anti-arrhythmic drugs than with non-active control, and that the odds of AF recurrence are statistically significantly higher for dronedarone than for amiodarone. However, the results for outcomes of all-cause mortality, stroke and treatment discontinuations and serious adverse events were all uncertain. A discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate dronedarone versus antiarrhythmic drugs and standard therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dronedarone was relatively robust and less than 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. Exploratory work undertaken by the ERG identified that the main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the benefits assigned to dronedarone for all-cause mortality and stroke. Dronedarone is not cost-effective relative to its comparators when the only effect of treatment is a reduction in AF recurrences. In conclusion, uncertainties remain in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone. In particular, the clinical evidence for the major drivers of cost-effectiveness (all-cause mortality and stroke), and consequently the additional benefits attributed in the economic model to dronedarone compared to other anti-arrhythmic drugs are highly uncertain. The final guidance, issued by NICE on 25 August 2010, states that: Dronedarone is recommended as an option for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation only in people: whose atrial fibrillation is not controlled by first-line therapy (usually including beta-blockers), that is, as a second-line treatment option, and who have at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: - hypertension requiring drugs of at least two different classes, diabetes mellitus, previous transient ischaemic attack, stroke or systemic embolism, left atrial diameter of 50 mm or greater, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% (noting that the summary of product characteristics [SPC] does not recommend dronedarone for people with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35% because of limited experience of using it in this group) or age 70 years or older, and who do not have unstable New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure. Furthermore, 'People who do not meet the criteria above who are currently receiving dronedarone should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop'.

Alitretinoin for the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin for the treatment of adults with severe chronic hand eczema refractory to topical steroid treatment in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Basilea Pharmaceuticals Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The clinical evidence came from a single placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of daily treatment with alitretinoin for 12-24 weeks, with follow-up for a further 24 weeks, in patients with severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) unresponsive to topical steroids. A statistically significantly greater proportion of patients using alitretinoin achieved the primary end point of clear or almost clear hands by week 24 than did those with placebo. Dose-dependent headache was the most commonly reported adverse event in patients treated with alitretinoin. Serious adverse events were rare, but alitretinoin was associated with increases in both total cholesterol and triglycerides, which has implications for risks of future cardiovascular events. The manufacturer submitted a de novo decision analytic model to estimate, over a time horizon of 3 years, the cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin versus the other relevant comparators identified by NICE. In response to the points of clarification put to it by the ERG regarding the initial submission, the manufacturer provided additional evidence and a revised decision analytic model with a 'placebo' arm. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported for alitretinoin were 8614 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) versus ciclosporin, -469 pounds per QALY versus psoralen + UVA (with alitretinoin dominant) and 10,612 pounds per QALY versus azathioprine. These ICERs decreased as the time horizon was extended in sensitivity analyses. In patients with hyperkeratotic CHE and in women of child-bearing potential, the ICER remained below 20,000. pounds When the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values used in the model were replaced with those derived from an alternative study, these ICERs increased significantly (to 22,312 pounds per QALY for alitretinoin versus azathioprine). In the revised model, alitretinoin was reported to have an ICER of 12,931 pounds per QALY gained versus supportive care (placebo). However, the model underestimates the costs of treatment associated with alitretinoin. The manufacturer assumed that patients receiving alitretinoin visited the dermatologist every 4 weeks and ceased treatment as soon as they responded to it. If, in practice, patients would receive treatment for longer than this, then the manufacturer's model will have significantly underestimated the costs to the NHS. Additional analyses undertaken by the ERG produced ICERs close to 30,000 pounds per QALY gained for alitretinoin versus supportive care. This was largely due to uncertainty surrounding the impact of alitretinoin on HRQoL. The placebo-controlled trials conducted to date have established that alitretinoin can be efficacious for the treatment of severe CHE refractory to topical steroids, but longer term follow-up of trials or the implementation of registries is required to better establish the longer term efficacy or safety of alitretinoin. NICE recommended the use of alitretinoin for patients with severe CHE and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of at least 15. Treatment was recommended to be stopped as soon as an adequate response was observed, or if CHE remained severe at 12 weeks, or if response was inadequate at 24 weeks.

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

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

Sugammadex for the reversal of muscle relaxation in general anaesthesia: a systematic review and economic assessment

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex (Bridion) is a newly developed agent for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) induced by rocuronium or vecuronium. Sugammadex can reverse profound blockade and can be given for immediate reversal and its use would avoid the potentially serious adverse effects of the currently used agent, succinylcholine. Also, sugammadex can reverse NMB more quickly and predictably than existing agents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sugammadex for the reversal of muscle relaxation after general anaesthesia in UK practice following routine or rapid induction of NMB.

DATA SOURCES

Medical databases [including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), conference proceedings, internet sites and clinical trials registers] were searched to identify published and unpublished studies. The main searches were carried out in May 2008 and supplemented by current awareness updates up until November 2008.

REVIEW METHODS

For the clinical effectiveness review, randomised controlled trials of sugammadex against placebo or an active comparator (neostigmine + glycopyrrolate) for the reversal of moderate or profound NMB and for immediate reversal (spontaneous recovery from succinylcholine-induced blockade) were included. The primary effectiveness outcome was speed of recovery from NMB, as measured by objective monitoring of neuromuscular function. For the cost-effectiveness review, a de novo economic assessment considered the routine induction of NMB and the rapid induction and/or reversal of NMB, and threshold analyses were carried out on a series of pairwise comparisons to establish how effective sugammadex needs to be to justify its cost.

RESULTS

The review of clinical effectiveness included four randomised active-control trials of sugammadex, nine randomised placebo-controlled trials and five studies in special populations. A total of 2132 titles and abstracts and 265 full-text publications were screened. The included trials indicated that sugammadex produces more rapid recovery from moderate or profound NMB than placebo or neostigmine. Median time to recovery from moderate blockade was 1.3-1.7 minutes for rocuronium + sugammadex, 21-86 minutes for rocuronium + placebo and 17.6 minutes for rocuronium + neostigmine. In profound blockade, median time to recovery was 2.7 minutes for rocuronium + sugammadex, 30 to > 90 minutes for rocuronium + placebo, and 49 minutes for rocuronium + neostigmine. Results for vecuronium were similar. In addition, recovery from NMB was faster with rocuronium reversed by sugammadex 16 mg/kg after 3 minutes (immediate reversal) than with succinylcholine followed by spontaneous recovery (median time to primary outcome 4.2 versus 7.1 minutes). The evidence base for modelling cost-effectiveness is very limited. However, assuming that the reductions in recovery times seen in the trials can be achieved in routine practice and can be used productively, sugammadex [2 mg/kg (4 mg/kg)] is potentially cost-effective at its current list price for the routine reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate (profound) blockade, if each minute of recovery time saved can be valued at approximately 2.40 pounds (1.75 pounds) or more. This is more likely to be achieved if any reductions in recovery time are in the operating room (estimated value of 4.44 pounds per minute saved) rather than the recovery room (estimated value of 0.33 pounds per minute saved). The results were broadly similar for rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced blockade. For rapid reversal of NMB it appeared that any reduction in morbidity from adopting sugammadex is unlikely to result in significant cost savings.

LIMITATIONS

The evidence base was not large and many of the published trials were dose-finding and safety studies with very small sample sizes. Also, some relevant outcomes, in particular patient experience/quality of life and resources/costs used, were either not investigated or not reported. In addition, it is likely that the patients included in the efficacy trials were relatively young and in good general health compared with the overall surgical population. Regarding the economic evaluation, there appears to be no evidence linking measures of clinical efficacy to patients' health-related quality of life and mortality risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Sugammadex may be a cost-effective option compared with neostigmine + glycopyrrolate for reversal of moderate NMB and also provides the facility to recover patients from profound blockade. Rocuronium + sugammadex could be considered as a replacement for succinylcholine for rapid induction (and reversal) of NMB, although this may not be a cost-effective option in some types of patient at current list prices for sugammadex. Considerable uncertainties remain about whether the full benefits of sugammadex can be realised in clinical practice.

Sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular block after rapid sequence intubation: a systematic review and economic assessment

Sugammadex 16 mg kg⁻¹ can be used for the immediate reversal of neuromuscular block 3 min after administration of rocuronium and could be used in place of succinylcholine for emergency intubation. We have systematically reviewed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness and made an economic assessment of sugammadex for immediate reversal. The economic assessment investigated whether sugammadex appears cost-effective under various assumptions about the value of any reduction in recovery time with sugammadex, the likelihood of a 'can't intubate, can't ventilate' (CICV) event, the age of the patient, and the length of the procedure. Three trials were included in the efficacy review. Sugammadex administered 3 or 5 min after rocuronium produced markedly faster recovery than placebo or spontaneous recovery from succinylcholine-induced block. No published economic evaluations were found. Our economic analyses showed that sugammadex appears more cost-effective, where the value of any reduction in recovery time is greater, where the reduction in mortality compared with succinylcholine is greater, and where the patient is younger, for lower probabilities of a CICV event and for long procedures which do not require profound block throughout. Because of the lack of evidence, the value of some parameters remains unknown, which makes it difficult to provide a definitive assessment of the cost-effectiveness of sugammadex in practice. The use of sugammadex in combination with high-dose rocuronium is efficacious. Further research is needed to clarify key parameters in the analysis and to allow a fuller economic assessment.

Sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for routine reversal of neuromuscular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation

The cost-effectiveness of sugammadex for the routine reversal of muscle relaxation produced by rocuronium or vecuronium in UK practice is uncertain. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate and an economic assessment of sugammadex for the reversal of moderate or profound neuromuscular block (NMB) produced by rocuronium or vecuronium. The economic assessment aimed to establish the reduction in recovery time and the 'value of time saved' which would be necessary for sugammadex to be potentially cost-effective compared with existing practice. Three trials indicated that sugammadex 2 mg kg⁻¹ (4 mg kg⁻¹) produces more rapid recovery from moderate (profound) NMB than neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. The economic assessment indicated that if the reductions in recovery time associated with sugammadex in the trials are replicated in routine practice, sugammadex would be cost-effective if those reductions are achieved in the operating theatre (assumed value of staff time, £4.44 per minute), but not if they are achieved in the recovery room (assumed value of staff time, £0.33 per minute). However, there is considerable uncertainty in these results. Sugammadex has the potential to be cost-effective compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for the reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate or profound NMB, provided that the time savings observed in trials can be achieved and put to productive use in clinical practice. Further research is required to evaluate the effects of sugammadex on patient safety, predictability of recovery from NMB, patient outcomes, and efficient use of resources.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter based upon a review of the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The population considered in the submission were adult clinically stable patients with a recent history of or current non-permanent AF. Comparators were the current available anti-arrhythmic drugs: class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone), sotalol and amiodarone. Outcomes were AF recurrence, all-cause mortality, stroke, treatment discontinuations (due to any cause or due to adverse events) and serious adverse events. The main evidence came from four phase III randomised controlled trials, direct and indirect meta-analyses from a systematic review, and a synthesis of the direct and indirect evidence using a mixed-treatment comparison. Overall, the results from the different synthesis approaches showed that the odds of AF recurrence appeared statistically significantly lower with dronedarone and other anti-arrhythmic drugs than with non-active control, and that the odds of AF recurrence are statistically significantly higher for dronedarone than for amiodarone. However, the results for outcomes of all-cause mortality, stroke and treatment discontinuations and serious adverse events were all uncertain. A discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate dronedarone versus antiarrhythmic drugs and standard therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dronedarone was relatively robust and less than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Exploratory work undertaken by the ERG identified that the main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the benefits assigned to dronedarone for all-cause mortality and stroke. Dronedarone is not cost-effective relative to its comparators when the only effect of treatment is a reduction in AF recurrences. In conclusion, uncertainties remain in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone. In particular, the clinical evidence for the major drivers of cost-effectiveness (all-cause mortality and stroke), and consequently the additional benefits attributed in the economic model to dronedarone compared to other anti-arrhythmic drugs are highly uncertain. The final guidance, issued by NICE on 25 August 2010, states that: Dronedarone is recommended as an option for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation only in people: whose atrial fibrillation is not controlled by first-line therapy (usually including beta-blockers), that is, as a second-line treatment option, and who have at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: - hypertension requiring drugs of at least two different classes, diabetes mellitus, previous transient ischaemic attack, stroke or systemic embolism, left atrial diameter of 50 mm or greater, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% (noting that the summary of product characteristics [SPC] does not recommend dronedarone for people with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35% because of limited experience of using it in this group) or age 70 years or older, and who do not have unstable New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure. Furthermore, ‘People who do not meet the criteria above who are currently receiving dronedarone should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop’.

Rimonabant for the treatment of overweight and obese people

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of rimonabant for the treatment of obese or overweight patients based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Centre for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's main evidence came from four randomised controlled trials. Rimonabant resulted in a significantly greater benefit than placebo for all primary weight loss outcomes. At 1 year, rimonabant had a statistically significant beneficial effect on systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting plasma glucose in diabetics and non-diabetics, and glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetics. Improvements were maintained over 2 years with rimonabant; withdrawal of rimonabant at 1 year resulted in a reduction in weight loss until there was no difference from placebo at 2 years. Psychiatric adverse events were experienced by 26% and 14% of rimonabant and placebo patients respectively; figures for symptoms of depression were 9% and 5% respectively. Pairwise comparisons of orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant showed beneficial effects of rimonabant over orlistat and sibutramine for weight loss outcomes; however, response hurdles imposed on orlistat or sibutramine in clinical practice may not have been applied in the orlistat and sibutramine trials. The manufacturer's Markov cohort model evaluated rimonabant versus orlistat, sibutramine and diet and exercise alone for three base-case populations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rimonabant varied from 10,534 pounds to 13,236 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) versus diet and exercise, to 8977 pounds to 12,138 pounds per QALY versus orlistat, to 1463 pounds to 3908 pounds per QALY versus sibutramine. In subgroup analysis there was a wider variation in the ICER estimates although none exceeded 20,000 pounds per QALY. The ICER of rimonabant remained under 20,000 pounds per QALY in reanalyses by the manufacturer and the ERG, with the results sensitive to the source of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits in the model. Four treatment strategies were modelled in comparisons of rimonabant versus diet and exercise alone and orlistat and sibutramine in which rimonabant was continued only in patients achieving 5% weight loss at 3, 6, 9 or 12 months. In pairwise comparisons rimonabant remained below a threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY in 70% of the comparisons reported. The results were most sensitive to the decrement applied to depression and the costs of screening for depression. In conclusion, areas of uncertainty remain in relation to the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rimonabant, for example lack of evidence on long-term outcomes and the effect of rimonabant on cardiovascular events, developing diabetes and mortality, and lack of data on the HRQoL benefits associated with rimonabant. The lack of response hurdles applied to sibutramine and orlistat means that the comparator strategies were not considered by the ERG to reflect their respective product licenses or current NHS use. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that rimonabant is recommended as an adjunct to diet and exercise for adults who are obese or overweight and who have had an inadequate response to, are intolerant of or are contraindicated to orlistat and sibutramine.

Alitretinoin for the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin for the treatment of adults with severe chronic hand eczema refractory to topical steroid treatment in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Basilea Pharmaceuticals Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The clinical evidence came from a single placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of daily treatment with alitretinoin for 12–24 weeks, with follow-up for a further 24 weeks, in patients with severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) unresponsive to topical steroids. A statistically significantly greater proportion of patients using alitretinoin achieved the primary end point of clear or almost clear hands by week 24 than did those with placebo. Dose-dependent headache was the most commonly reported adverse event in patients treated with alitretinoin. Serious adverse events were rare, but alitretinoin was associated with increases in both total cholesterol and triglycerides, which has implications for risks of future cardiovascular events. The manufacturer submitted a de novo decision analytic model to estimate, over a time horizon of 3 years, the cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin versus the other relevant comparators identified by NICE. In response to the points of clarification put to it by the ERG regarding the initial submission, the manufacturer provided additional evidence and a revised decision analytic model with a ‘placebo’ arm. In the manufacturer’s original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported for alitretinoin were £8614 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) versus ciclosporin, –£469 per QALY versus psoralen + UVA (with alitretinoin dominant) and £10,612 per QALY versus azathioprine. These ICERs decreased as the time horizon was extended in sensitivity analyses. In patients with hyperkeratotic CHE and in women of child-bearing potential, the ICER remained below £20,000. When the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values used in the model were replaced with those derived from an alternative study, these ICERs increased significantly (to £22,312 per QALY for alitretinoin versus azathioprine). In the revised model, alitretinoin was reported to have an ICER of £12,931 per QALY gained versus supportive care (placebo). However, the model underestimates the costs of treatment associated with alitretinoin. The manufacturer assumed that patients receiving alitretinoin visited the dermatologist every 4 weeks and ceased treatment as soon as they responded to it. If, in practice, patients would receive treatment for longer than this, then the manufacturer’s model will have significantly underestimated the costs to the NHS. Additional analyses undertaken by the ERG produced ICERs close to £30,000 per QALY gained for alitretinoin versus supportive care. This was largely due to uncertainty surrounding the impact of alitretinoin on HRQoL. The placebo-controlled trials conducted to date have established that alitretinoin can be efficacious for the treatment of severe CHE refractory to topical steroids, but longer term follow-up of trials or the implementation of registries is required to better establish the longer term efficacy or safety of alitretinoin. NICE recommended the use of alitretinoin for patients with severe CHE and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of at least 15. Treatment was recommended to be stopped as soon as an adequate response was observed, or if CHE remained severe at 12 weeks, or if response was inadequate at 24 weeks.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? An initial review of current practice

OBJECTIVES

To identify methodological research on the incorporation of adverse effects in economic models and to review current practice.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases (Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, IDEAS, MEDLINE and Science Citation Index) were searched from inception to September 2007. Health technology assessment (HTA) reports commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA programme and published between 2004 and 2007 were also reviewed.

REVIEW METHODS

The reviews of methodological research on the inclusion of adverse effects in decision models and of current practice were carried out according to standard methods. Data were summarised in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Of the 719 potentially relevant references in the methodological research review, five met the inclusion criteria; however, they contained little information of direct relevance to the incorporation of adverse effects in models. Of the 194 HTA monographs published from 2004 to 2007, 80 were reviewed, covering a range of research and therapeutic areas. In total, 85% of the reports included adverse effects in the clinical effectiveness review and 54% of the decision models included adverse effects in the model; 49% included adverse effects in the clinical review and model. The link between adverse effects in the clinical review and model was generally weak; only 3/80 (< 4%) used the results of a meta-analysis from the systematic review of clinical effectiveness and none used only data from the review without further manipulation. Of the models including adverse effects, 67% used a clinical adverse effects parameter, 79% used a cost of adverse effects parameter, 86% used one of these and 60% used both. Most models (83%) used utilities, but only two (2.5%) used solely utilities to incorporate adverse effects and were explicit that the utility captured relevant adverse effects; 53% of those models that included utilities derived them from patients on treatment and could therefore be interpreted as capturing adverse effects. In total, 30% of the models that included adverse effects used withdrawals related to drug toxicity and therefore might be interpreted as using withdrawals to capture adverse effects, but this was explicitly stated in only three reports. Of the 37 models that did not include adverse effects, 18 provided justification for this omission, most commonly lack of data; 19 appeared to make no explicit consideration of adverse effects in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an implicit assumption within modelling guidance that adverse effects are very important but there is a lack of clarity regarding how they should be dealt with and considered in modelling. In many cases a lack of clear reporting in the HTAs made it extremely difficult to ascertain what had actually been carried out in consideration of adverse effects. The main recommendation is for much clearer and explicit reporting of adverse effects, or their exclusion, in decision models and for explicit recognition in future guidelines that 'all relevant outcomes' should include some consideration of adverse events.

Use of non-randomised evidence alongside randomised trials in a systematic review of endovascular aneurysm repair: strengths and limitations

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether limitations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be addressed by evidence from non-randomised studies.

DESIGN

Analysis of data from a systematic review.

METHODS

We conducted a review of EVAR versus open repair or non-surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. In addition to RCTs, we included pre-specified registries of EVAR and open repair.

RESULTS

The six included RCTs randomised patients in 2003 and earlier. Of the three registries included, one contributed data on a large (>8000) sample of patients treated with newer generation EVAR devices and followed up for up to 8 years. However, treatment dates of these patients overlapped with those of the RCTs. The other registries were of limited usefulness. A large (>45,000) controlled observational study published while the review was in progress broadly supported the findings of RCTs comparing EVAR with open surgery. A comparison of outcomes across all studies did not support the hypothesis that the findings of the RCTs are no longer representative of clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Both randomised and non-randomised sources of evidence have strengths and weaknesses for assessing the effectiveness of EVAR. Further research should explore the optimum use of registry data, including patient-level analyses.

The effect of different treatment durations of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and value of information analysis

OBJECTIVE

To update the previous systematic review of the use of clopidogrel in combination with aspirin for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), investigating the optimal duration of treatment and effects of withdrawal from treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Ten electronic databases and internet resources were searched from 2003 to February 2007, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CENTRAL and CINAHL.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone were used to evaluate clinical effectiveness and safety. Inclusion criteria included any comparator trial for duration of treatment studies, and any study design conducted in patients with NSTE-ACS, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD) or ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for evidence of rebound on withdrawal of treatment. The existing model was updated to provide a more robust approach to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternative durations of clopidogrel and to assess the potential value of further research using value of information approaches.

RESULTS

Two RCTs were included for the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. The only RCTs identified that evaluated different durations of clopidogrel treatments were conducted in patients with stroke, PAD, STEMI or PCI. Two small RCTs and one uncontrolled retrospective cohort study were identified for the review of rebound after thienopyridine withdrawal in patients with medically-treated NSTE-ACS. On broadening the criteria, five RCTs, two observational cohorts, nine case series and 33 case reports were identified in patients post-PCI, and two case series and two case reports were identified in patients with stroke, PAD or STEMI. The CURE trial reported that the proportion of patients experiencing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke was lower in the clopidogrel group at 30 days [relative risk (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.92] and from 30 days to 12 months (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.95). Clopidogrel seems to be effective in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with NSTE-ACS at intermediate and high risk of ischaemic events, and appears to increase the risk of bleeding when compared with aspirin in patients with intermediate risk of ischaemic events. In terms of the cost-effectiveness of alternative durations of clopidogrel, the updated model reinforced the conclusions from the earlier analysis, i.e. a policy of 12 months of clopidogrel for patients with NSTE-ACS appears to be cost-effective in both 'average' patients and higher-risk patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of 12 months' duration ranged from 13,380 pounds to 20,661 pounds per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) across the different scenarios. For lower-risk patients, treatment beyond 3 months does not appear to be cost-effective. The ICER of 12 months' treatment with clopidogrel varied between 49,436 pounds and 58,691 pounds per QALY. Estimates of expected value of perfect information (EVPI) were higher for the combined analysis and for analysis of high-risk patients alone (between 48.69 million pounds and 108.4 million pounds at a threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY). At a threshold of 20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per QALY, total EVPI ranged between 3.27 million pounds and 20.38 million pounds in the lower-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

The review was limited by the lack of available data. There is considerable variation in the costs of uncertainty surrounding the different scenarios and populations considered. The validity of these may also be less reliable in the higher-risk groups owing to changes in clinical practice. An adequately powered, well-conducted RCT that directly compares different durations of clopidogrel treatment in patients with NSTE-ACS would ideally be required to provide more robust evidence in relation to the impact of clopidogrel withdrawal.

Rimonabant for the treatment of overweight and obese people

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of rimonabant for the treatment of obese or overweight patients based upon a review of the manufacturer’s submission to the National Centre for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission’s main evidence came from four randomised controlled trials. Rimonabant resulted in a significantly greater benefit than placebo for all primary weight loss outcomes. At 1 year, rimonabant had a statistically significant beneficial effect on systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting plasma glucose in diabetics and non-diabetics, and glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetics. Improvements were maintained over 2 years with rimonabant; withdrawal of rimonabant at 1 year resulted in a reduction in weight loss until there was no difference from placebo at 2 years. Psychiatric adverse events were experienced by 26% and 14% of rimonabant and placebo patients respectively; figures for symptoms of depression were 9% and 5% respectively. Pairwise comparisons of orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant showed beneficial effects of rimonabant over orlistat and sibutramine for weight loss outcomes; however, response hurdles imposed on orlistat or sibutramine in clinical practice may not have been applied in the orlistat and sibutramine trials. The manufacturer’s Markov cohort model evaluated rimonabant versus orlistat, sibutramine and diet and exercise alone for three base-case populations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rimonabant varied from £10,534–£13,236 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) versus diet and exercise, to £8977–£12,138 per QALY versus orlistat, to £1463–£3908 per QALY versus sibutramine. In subgroup analysis there was a wider variation in the ICER estimates although none exceeded £20,000 per QALY. The ICER of rimonabant remained under £20,000 per QALY in reanalyses by the manufacturer and the ERG, with the results sensitive to the source of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits in the model. Four treatment strategies were modelled in comparisons of rimonabant versus diet and exercise alone and orlistat and sibutramine in which rimonabant was continued only in patients achieving 5% weight loss at 3, 6, 9 or 12 months. In pairwise comparisons rimonabant remained below a threshold of £30,000 per QALY in 70% of the comparisons reported. The results were most sensitive to the decrement applied to depression and the costs of screening for depression. In conclusion, areas of uncertainty remain in relation to the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rimonabant, for example lack of evidence on long-term outcomes and the effect of rimonabant on cardiovascular events, developing diabetes and mortality, and lack of data on the HRQoL benefits associated with rimonabant. The lack of response hurdles applied to sibutramine and orlistat means that the comparator strategies were not considered by the ERG to reflect their respective product licenses or current NHS use. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that rimonabant is recommended as an adjunct to diet and exercise for adults who are obese or overweight and who have had an inadequate response to, are intolerant of or are contraindicated to orlistat and sibutramine.

Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) compared with usual care and placebo for refractory stable angina and heart failure, and to undertake analyses of the expected value of information to assess the potential value of future research on EECP.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched between November 2007 and March 2008.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken and a decision model developed to compare EECP treatment with no treatment in adults with chronic stable angina.

RESULTS

Five studies were included in the review. In the Multicenter Study of Enhanced External Counterpulsation (MUST-EECP), time to greater than or equal to 1-mm ST segment depression (exercise-induced ischaemia) was statistically significantly improved in the EECP group compared with the control group (sham EECP), mean difference (MD) 41 seconds [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.10-73.90]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the EECP and control groups in the change in exercise duration from baseline to end of treatment, self-reported angina episodes or daily nitroglycerin use, and the clinical significance of the limited benefits was unclear. There was also a lack of data on long-term outcomes. There were more withdrawals due to adverse events in the EECP group than in the control group, as well as a greater proportion of patients with adverse events [relative risk (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 1.35-3.38]. The three non-randomised studies compared EECP with elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and usual care. There was a high risk of selection bias in all three studies and the results should be treated with considerable caution. The study comparing an EECP registry with a PCI registry reported similar 1-year all-cause mortality in both groups. In the Prospective Evaluation of EECP in Congestive Heart Failure (PEECH) trial, patients with heart failure were randomised to EECP or to usual care (pharmacotherapy only). At 6 months post treatment, the proportion of patients achieving at least a 60-second increase in exercise duration was higher in the EECP group (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89-2.16), but the proportion with an improvement in peak VO2 was similar in both groups. The clinical significance of this is unclear. The proportion of patients in the EECP group with an improvement in New York Heart Association classification was higher (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.25-4.06) at 6 months, as was mean exercise duration, MD 34.6 (95% CI -4.86 to 74.06). There were more withdrawals in the EECP group than in the control group as a result of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67-1.66). There were limitations in the generalisability of results of the trial and, again, a lack of data on long-term outcomes. The review of cost-effectiveness evidence found only one unpublished study but demonstrated that the long-term maintenance of quality of life benefits of EECP is central to the estimate of its cost-effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EECP was 18,643 pounds for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with a probability of being cost-effective of 0.44 and 0.70 at cost-effectiveness thresholds of 20,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds per QALY gained respectively. Results were sensitive to the duration of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits from treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from a single randomised controlled trial (MUST-EECP) do not provide firm evidence of the clinical effectiveness of EECP in refractory stable angina or in heart failure. High-quality studies are required to investigate the benefits of EECP, whether these outweigh the common adverse effects and its long-term cost-effectiveness in terms of quality of life benefits.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder: a systematic review of controlled trials

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating all clinically relevant pharmacological interventions for the prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. Thirty-four trials were included in the review. Direct comparisons with placebo and with lithium were available for most drugs. In addition, there were direct comparisons of valproate vs. olanzapine, imipramine vs. lithium plus imipramine, olanzapine plus mood stabilisers vs. mood stabilisers and perphenazine plus mood stabilisers vs. mood stabilisers. Methodological quality varied across studies and the strength of evidence was not equal for all treatments or for all comparisons. There is evidence from placebo-controlled trials for the efficacy of lithium, valproate and lamotrigine as maintenance therapy for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. Three drugs have a significant effect in the prevention of manic relapses (lithium, olanzapine and aripiprazole) and three in the prevention of depressive symptoms (valproate, lamotrigine and imipramine). Imipramine is little used in practice, because of concern about adverse effects. The significant effects of olanzapine and aripiprazole were demonstrated in selected responsive bipolar I patients only. Despite widespread use in clinical practice, there is little evidence to support the efficacy of combination therapy.

Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term safety, efficacy and costs of stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) compared with conventional haemorrhoidectomy.

METHOD

We searched 26 electronic databases and websites for studies in any language up to July 2006. Inclusion criteria were predefined, and each stage of the review process was conducted in duplicate.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included (n = 2279). All had some methodological flaws. Postoperatively, 19 trials (95%) reported less pain, 17 (89%) reported a shorter operating time, 14 (88%) a shorter hospital stay, and 14 (93%) a shorter convalescence time following SH. However, prolapse was significantly more common after SH (OR 3.38; 95% CI: 1.00, 11.47). In the longer term, prolapse was significantly more common after SH (OR 4.34; 95% CI: 1.67, 11.28) as was reintervention for prolapse (OR 6.78; 95% CI: 2.00, 23.00). There were no differences in the rate or type of complications. Conventional haemorrhoidectomy and SH had similar costs during the initial admission.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional haemorrhoidectomy, SH resulted in less postoperative pain, shorter operating time, a shorter hospital stay, and a shorter convalescence, but a higher rate of prolapse and reintervention for prolapse.

Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of circular stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) for the treatment of haemorrhoids.

DATA SOURCES

Main electronic databases were searched up to July 2006.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 20 or more participants that compared SH with any conventional haemorrhoidectomy (CH) technique in people of any age with prolapsing haemorrhoids for whom surgery is considered a relevant option, were used to evaluate clinical effectiveness. An economic model of the surgical treatment of haemorrhoids was developed.

RESULTS

The clinical effectiveness review included 27 RCTs (n = 2279; 1137 SH; 1142 CH). All had some methodological flaws; only two reported recruiting patients with second, third and fourth degree haemorrhoids, and 37% reported using an appropriate method of randomisation and/or allocation concealment. In the early postoperative period 95% of trials reported less pain following SH; by day 21 the pain reported following SH and CH was minimal, with little difference between the two techniques. Significantly fewer patients had unhealed wounds at 6 weeks following SH [odds ratio (OR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.19, p < 0.001]. Residual prolapse was more common after SH (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 11.47, p = 0.05, nine RCTs, results of a sensitivity analysis). There was no difference between SH and CH in the incidence of bleeding or postoperative complications. SH resulted in shorter operating times, hospital stay, time to first bowel movement and return to normal activity. In the short term (between 6 weeks and a year) prolapse was more common after SH (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.11 to 19.71, p = 0.04, six RCTs). There was no difference in the number of patients complaining of pain between SH and CH. In the long term (1 year and over), there was a significantly higher rate of prolapse after SH (OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.67 to 11.28, p = 0.003, 12 RCTs). There was no difference in the number of patients experiencing pain, or the incidence of bleeding, between SH and CH. There was no difference in the total number of reinterventions, or reinterventions for pain, bleeding or complications, between SH and CH. Significantly more reinterventions were undertaken after SH for prolapse at 12 months or longer (OR 6.78, 95% CI 2.00 to 23.00, p = 0.002, six RCTs). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between SH and CH. In the economic assessment it was found that, on average, CH dominated SH. However, CH and SH had very similar costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). On average, the difference in costs between the procedures was 19 pounds and the difference in QALY was -0.001, favouring CH, over 3 years. In terms of QALYs, the superior quality of life due to lower pain levels in the early postoperative period with SH was offset by the higher rate of symptoms over the follow-up period, compared with CH. The results are very sensitive to modelling assumptions, particularly the valuation of utility in the early postoperative period. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 20,000-30,000 pounds per QALY, SH had a 45% probability of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

SH was associated with less pain in the immediate postoperative period, but a higher rate of residual prolapse, prolapse in the longer term and reintervention for prolapse. There was no clear difference in the rate or type of complications associated with the two techniques and the absolute and relative rates of recurrence and reintervention for both are still uncertain. CH and SH had very similar costs and QALYs, the cost of the staple gun being offset by savings in hospital stay. Should the price of the gun change, the conclusions of the economic analysis may also change. Some training may be required in the use of the staple gun; this is not expected to have major resource implications. Given the currently available clinical evidence and the results of the economic analysis, the decision as to whether SH or CH is conducted could primarily be based on the priorities and preferences of the patient and surgeon. An adequately powered, good-quality RCT is required, comparing SH with CH, recruiting patients with second, third and fourth degree haemorrhoids, and having a minimum follow-up period of 5 years to ensure an adequate evaluation of the reintervention rate. Other areas for research are the effectiveness of SH in patients with fourth degree haemorrhoids and patients with co-morbid conditions, the reintervention rates for all treatments for haemorrhoids, utilities of patients up to 6 months postoperatively, the trade-offs of patients for short-term pain versus long-term outcomes, and the ability of SH to reduce hospital stays in a real practice setting.

The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists have been shown to improve the outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We assess the cost-effectiveness of two TNF antagonists and so-called 'palliative care' for the treatment of active PsA from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

Bayesian statistical methods were used to synthesize evidence from three Phase III trials, identified through a systematic review, and estimate the relative efficacy of etanercept, infliximab and palliative care. A probabilistic decision analytic model was then used to compare these treatments after the failure of at least two conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), following the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) guidelines for use. The primary outcome measure, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), was derived from utility values estimated as a function of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). The deterioration experienced in HAQ at treatment withdrawal (rebound) was incorporated using alternative scenarios to represent best- and worst-case assumptions. The model was extended beyond the trial duration to a 10-yr and lifetime horizon, using available evidence and expert opinion-based assumptions on disease progression. Resource utilization was based on literature, national databases and expert opinion. Prices were obtained from routine NHS sources and published literature.

RESULTS

At a 10-yr time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etanercept compared with palliative care was pound sterling26 361 per QALY gained for the best-case rebound scenario, which increased to pound sterling30 628 for the worst-case. The ICERs for infliximab compared with etanercept were pound sterling165 363 and pound sterling205 345 per QALY, respectively. These findings are mainly explained by the fact that infliximab has higher acquisition and administration costs without substantially superior effectiveness compared with etanercept. Results were sensitive to estimates of rebound assumptions at withdrawal and the time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Only results for etanercept remained within the range of cost-effectiveness estimates considered to represent value for money in the NHS by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Further research appears most valuable in relation to the short-term effectiveness, utility parameters and assumptions regarding the effect of rebound.

A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing relapse in people with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and/or psychosocial interventions for the prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched up to September 2005.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews were undertaken on the clinical and economic effectiveness of treatments. An analysis was performed using the methods of mixed treatment comparison (MTC) to enable indirect comparisons to be made between the treatments. An economic model of treatments for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder was developed.

RESULTS

Forty-five trials were included in the clinical effectiveness review; all but one studied adults. This review found that for the prevention of all relapses, lithium, valproate, lamotrigine and olanzapine performed better than placebo, with lithium and lamotrigine having the strongest evidence. For depressive relapse prevention, valproate, lamotrigine and imipramine performed better than placebo, with evidence strongest for lamotrigine and weakest for imipramine. For manic relapses, lithium and olanzapine performed significantly better than placebo. The MTC found that the best treatment for bipolar I patients with mainly depressive symptoms was valproate, followed by lithium plus imipramine. For bipolar I patients with mainly manic symptoms, olanzapine was the best treatment. From the studies investigating psychosocial interventions, there were few data for each comparison and outcome. The evidence suggests that cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), in combination with usual treatment, is effective for the prevention of relapse. Group psychoeducation and possibly family therapy may also have roles as adjunctive therapy for preventing relapse. The results from the decision analytic model developed on the cost-effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatments of bipolar I patients suggest that the choice of treatment is dependent upon a number of factors: the previous episode history of a patient and the mortality benefit assumed for lithium strategies. The results from the base-case analysis for patients with a recent history of depression suggest that valproate, lithium and the combination of lithium and imipramine are potentially cost-effective depending upon the amount that a decision-maker is willing to pay for additional health gain. Using conventional amounts that the NHS is prepared to pay for health gain, then the lithium-based strategies appear to be potentially cost-effective for this group. For patients with a recent history of mania, the choice of pharmacological intervention appears to be between olanzapine and lithium monotherapy. Again using conventional threshold as a reference point, the results suggest that lithium is the most cost-effective therapy. Excluding the additional mortality benefit associated with lithium-based strategies resulted in all treatments for patients with a recent history of a depressive episode being dominated by valproate and, in the case of patients with a recent history of a manic episode, by olanzapine.

CONCLUSIONS

Lithium, valproate, lamotrigine and olanzapine are effective as maintenance therapy for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. Olanzapine and lithium are efficacious for the prevention of manic relapses and valproate, lamotrigine and imipramine for the prevention of depressive relapse. There is some evidence that CBT, group psychoeducation and family therapy might be beneficial as adjuncts to pharmacological maintenance treatments. Insufficient information is available regarding the relative tolerability of the treatments or their relative effects on suicide rate and mortality. For patients with a recent depressive episode, valproate, lithium monotherapy and the combination of lithium and imipramine are potentially cost-effective. For patients with a recent manic episode, olanzapine and lithium monotherapy are potentially cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness estimates in both groups of patients were shown to be sensitive to the assumption of a reduced suicidal risk associated with lithium-based strategies. Further research is needed into the adverse effects of all treatments and the differential effects of agents. Good-quality trials of valproate, of combination therapy, e.g. lithium plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant, of psychosocial interventions and of the disorder in children are also required.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have inadequate response to standard treatment, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to July 2004.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review evaluated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of etanercept and infliximab. The efficacy of DMARDs in the treatment of PsA was also reviewed and treatments were compared using Bayesian evidence synthesis methods. Following evaluation of existing economic evaluations of etanercept and infliximab in PsA, a new economic model was developed (the York Model). This utilised the results from the evidence synthesis and data from a range of other sources.

RESULTS

Across the two trials, at 12 weeks, around 65% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 {pooled relative risk (RR) 4.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.74 to 6.42]}, demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. In addition, around 45% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an ACR 50 [pooled RR 10.84 (95% CI 4.47 to 26.28)] and around 12% achieved an ACR 70 [pooled RR 16.28 (95% CI 2.20 to 120.54)], demonstrating a good level of efficacy. The subgroup analyses conducted in one trial revealed that the effect of etanercept was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. In addition, almost 85% of patients treated with etanercept achieved a Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [pooled RR 2.60 (95% CI 1.96 to 3.45). The Psoriatic Area and Severity Index (PASI) results indicate some beneficial effect on psoriasis at 12 weeks; however, the data are sparse. The statistically significant reduction (improvement) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score with etanercept compared with placebo indicates a beneficial effect of etanercept on function. Similar results were seen at 24 weeks, except that the results for PASI 75 and PASI 50 now achieved statistical significance and data for Total Sharp Score annualised rate of progression were available; this was statistically significantly lower in etanercept-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients. Uncontrolled follow-up of patients indicates that treatment benefit may be maintained for at least 50 weeks. At 16 weeks, 65% of patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 20 [RR 6.80 (95% CI 2.89 to 16.01)], demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. This level of efficacy was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. Almost half the patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 50 [RR 49.00 (95% CI 3.06 to 785.06)] and over one-quarter achieved an ACR 70 [RR 31.00 (95% CI 1.90 to 504.86)] compared with none of the placebo group, demonstrating a good level of efficacy. In addition, 75% of patients treated with infliximab achieved a PsARC [RR 3.55 (95% CI 2.05 to 6.13)]. The beneficial treatment effect on psoriasis was also statistically significant with a mean difference in percentage change from baseline in PASI of -5 (95% CI -6.8 to -3.3), as was the percentage improvement from baseline in HAQ score with infliximab compared with placebo [mean difference 51.4 (95% CI 48.08 to 54.72)], indicating a beneficial effect of infliximab on functional status. Uncontrolled data from all measures of joint disease, psoriasis and HAQ collected up to 50 weeks of follow-up reflect those at 16 weeks. There were no radiographic assessments, so nothing can be determined about the potential or otherwise of infliximab to delay the progression of joint disease. Using the York cost-effectiveness model, infliximab was consistently dominated by etanercept because of its higher acquisition and administration costs without superior effectiveness. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of etanercept compared with palliative care ranged from 14,818 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,374 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) if it is assumed that, when patients eventually fail on biological therapy, their disability (in terms of HAQ score) deteriorates by the same amount as it improved when they initially respond to treatment (rebound equal to gain). Results for etanercept ranged from 25,443 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,441 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) per QALY gained under the assumption that, when patients fail on therapy, their disability level returns to what it would have been had they never responded (rebound equal to natural history).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited data available indicated that etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. Short-term data indicated that etanercept can delay joint disease progression, but long-term data are needed. There are no controlled data as yet to indicate that infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Treatment with both etanercept and infliximab for 12 weeks demonstrated a significant degree of efficacy, with no statistically significant difference between them. For both drugs, adverse events were common with mild injection/infusion reactions being the main treatment-related effect. The York model indicated that etanercept is more cost-effective than infliximab as it has a lower cost with little difference in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept is also sensitive to assumptions made about the extent of disease progression when patients are responding to therapy. The number of years for which a patient can be safely on biologicals is uncertain so these results should be considered with caution. Further research should include long-term controlled trials to confirm benefits, review adverse events and to explore further the implications of biologic therapy.

Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases and several Internet resources were searched up to April 2004.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews were undertaken of the efficacy, safety and economic reviews of etanercept and efalizumab. An existing systematic review of the efficacy and safety of other treatments was also updated. Economic models supplied by the manufacturers of etanercept and efalizumab were critiqued. An economic model was then developed of etanercept and efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

RESULTS

The review of the clinical evidence identified a total of 39 published and three unpublished studies: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of etanercept (three trials) and efalizumab (five); 10 studies of the adverse effects of the interventions; and 24 RCTs of the efficacy of the other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. The trials of the efficacy of the interventions were all double-blind and placebo-controlled trials and generally of good quality, but three of the five efalizumab trials were poorly reported. A total of 1347 patients were included in the etanercept trials and 2963 in the efalizumab trials. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 25 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from three RCTs. On average, active treatment resulted in 62% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 33% achieving a PASI 75, 11% achieving a PASI 90 and 40% were assessed as clear or almost clear. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. Improvement in quality of life as assessed by mean percentage change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was around 59% with etanercept 25 mg twice a week compared with 9% with placebo, and all mean differences that could be calculated were statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 50 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from two RCTs. Across the two trials, the proportion of patients achieving PASI 50, 75 and 90 was 76, 49 and 21%, respectively; the pooled relative risks were all statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. The findings for mean PASI after treatment, mean percentage change in PASI from baseline and mean percentage change in DLQI also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept treatment. Evidence from one RCT indicates that the response to etanercept is maintained post-treatment, at least in the medium term, and data from uncontrolled follow-up phases reflect and extend these findings. Efalizumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg once a week subcutaneously was studied in five RCTs. Across these trials, 12 weeks of active treatment resulted in an average of 55% of patients achieving PASI 50, 27% PASI 75, 4.3% PASI 90 and 27% clear or minimal psoriasis status. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. There is no evidence from RCTs that the response to efalizumab 1 mg/kg once a week is maintained when treatment continues beyond 12 weeks, and long-term follow-up data relate to a range of doses and are poorly reported and so cannot be used to draw even tentative conclusions regarding the long-term efficacy of efalizumab. Uncontrolled data from trial follow-up suggest that time to relapse may be around 60 days. No data indicating the existence or absence of any rebound in psoriasis after discontinuation of efalizumab were identified. There is no evidence relating to the efficacy of efalizumab upon retreatment. A mixed treatment comparison analysis found a higher response rate in terms of PASI 50, 75 and 90 with etanercept than with efalizumab. Injection site reactions appear to be the most common adverse effects of etanercept. Overall, etanercept appears to be well tolerated in short- and long-term use, although many of the long-term data are not from patients with psoriasis. Headache, chills and, to a lesser extent, nausea, myalgia, pain and fever are the common adverse events associated with efalizumab. Overall, withdrawal rates due to adverse events are low. Longer term data for efalizumab are not readily available for evaluation, but the adverse events data up to 3 years appear to reflect those over 12 weeks and to remain stable. Unfortunately, few data for serious infections and serious adverse events with efalizumab are available. For the primary analysis comparing etanercept, efalizumab and supportive care, the results of the York Model suggest that the biological therapies would only be cost-effective for all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis if the NHS were willing to pay over pound 60,000 per QALY gained. In patients with poor baseline quality of life (fourth quartile DLQI), efalizumab, etanercept 25 mg (intermittent), etanercept 25 mg (continuous) and etanercept 50 mg (intermittent) would be cost-effective as part of a treatment sequence if the NHS were willing to pay pound 45,000, pound 35,000, pound 45,000 and pound 65,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients who are also at high risk of inpatient hospitalisation (21 days per annum), these therapies would be cost-effective as part of a sequence as long as the NHS were willingness to pay pound 25,000, pound 20,000, pound 25,000 and pound 45,000 per QALY gained, respectively. As part of a secondary analysis including a wider range of systemic therapies as comparators, the York Model found that it would only be cost-effective to use etanercept and efalizumab in a sequence after methotrexate, ciclosporin and Fumaderm.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial data indicate that both etanercept and efalizumab are efficacious in patients who are eligible for systemic therapy, but the economic evaluation demonstrates that these biological therapies are likely to be cost-effective only in patients with poor baseline QoL and who are at risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy trials conducted in the specific population for which etanercept and efalizumab are licensed are required, as are long-term comparisons of etanercept and efalizumab with other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. Long-term efficacy trials and safety/tolerability data for patients treated with etanercept or efalizumab are required, as are trials on the response of specific subtypes of psoriasis to different drugs. Research on the rate of inpatient hospitalisation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis is warranted, and the effect of treatment on this rate.

Observational studies on ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns - a systematic review

AIM

To assess whether observational studies provide evidence to support general ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

METHOD

Systematic Review. Following a predefined study protocol, observational studies on ultrasound screening in unselected newborns were identified by search through 23 electronic databases and by hand search. Two reviewers selected the studies independently of each other and extracted the data.

RESULTS

49 observational studies were included. The prevalence of DDH ranged from 0.5 % to 30 % depending largely on the various possible definitions of DDH. Less than 0.1 % of patients with DDH were missed by ultrasound regardless of the technique employed (Graf or Terjesen). About 90 % of newborns with Graf type IIa hips requiring ultrasound control did not develop DDH. Only six studies with 23 108 newborns reported on complications, and there was only one infant with an avascular necrosis of the femoral head. The effectiveness of a general ultrasound screening cannot be evaluated reliably for several reasons: reports were often incomplete, follow-up of newborns with normal findings at the time of screening was often not carried out, clinically meaningful data about outcome as well as control groups were missing.

CONCLUSION

General ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip cannot be sufficiently assessed by the observational studies available. The lack of evidence does not mean that ultrasound screening is ineffective, but randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different screening regimens are needed.