The use of quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness studies.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
Biomedical subjects
M Sculpher
Publications and source records attributed to M Sculpher.
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.
Anti-Inflammatory Agents↗
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests for detecting urinary tract infection (UTI) in children under 5 years of age and to evaluate the effectiveness of tests used to investigate further children with confirmed UTI. Also, to evaluate the effectiveness of following up children with UTI and the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and imaging tests for the diagnosis and follow-up of UTI in children under 5. An additional objective was to develop a preliminary diagnostic algorithm for healthcare professionals. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to the end of 2002/early 2003. Consultation with experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using published guidelines and results were analysed according to test grouping: diagnosis of UTI and further investigation of UTI. The cost-effectiveness results from existing evaluations were synthesised. A separate cost-effectiveness model was developed using the best available evidence, in part derived from the results of the systematic review, to illustrate the potential cost-effectiveness of some alternative management strategies in a UK setting. The results of the systematic review were used to propose diagnostic algorithms for the diagnosis and further investigation of UTI in children. Economic analyses did not contribute directly to the development of these algorithms. RESULTS: The studies included in the review provided very little data on the accuracy of clinical investigations for the diagnosis of UTI, and criteria for clinical suspicion of UTI were not further defined. The majority of studies included in the review found that clean voided midstream urine (CVU) samples had similar accuracy to suprapubic aspiration (SPA) samples when cultured with the advantage of being a non-invasive collection method that can be used in the GP's surgery. Pad, nappy or bag specimens may be appropriate methods for obtaining a urine sample in non-toilet-trained children, although only limited data were available. Although the glucose test was reported to have the highest accuracy in terms of both ruling in and ruling out disease, only a limited number of studies of this test were included and these were conducted over 30 years ago. Dipstick tests are easy to perform in the GP's surgery, give an immediate result and are relatively cheap. The results of the systematic review showed that a dipstick for leucocyte esterase (LE) and nitrite, where both test results are interpreted in combination, was a good test both for ruling in (both positive) and ruling out (both negative) a UTI. A dipstick positive for either LE or nitrite and negative for the other provides inconclusive diagnostic information and further testing is therefore required in these patients. Microscopy is more time consuming and expensive to perform than a dipstick test, but potentially quicker and cheaper than culture. As with dipstick tests, a combination of microscopy for pyuria and bacteriuria can be used accurately to rule in and rule out a UTI. An indeterminate test result is again obtained if microscopy is positive for either pyuria or bacteriuria, and negative for the other. Confirmatory culture is required in these patients. In patients considered to have a UTI, further culture to determine antibiotic sensitivities may be an option to inform treatment decisions. Only one study satisfied the inclusion criteria of the economic review and the review highlighted a number of potential limitations of this study for NHS decision-making. A separate decision-analytic model was therefore developed to provide a more reliable estimate of the optimal strategy regarding the diagnosis and further investigation of children under 5 with suspected UTI from the perspective of the NHS. The economic model found that the optimal diagnostic strategy for children presenting with symptoms suggestive of UTI depends on a number of key factors. These included the relevant subgroup of children concerned, in terms of gender and age, and the health service's maximum willingness to pay for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review were used to derive an algorithm for the diagnosis of UTI in children under 5. This algorithm represents the conclusions of the review in terms of effective practice. There were insufficient data to propose an algorithm for the further investigation of UTI in children under 5. The quality assessment highlighted several areas that could be improved upon in future diagnostic accuracy studies.
Algorithms↗
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.
Antibodies, Monoclonal↗
Clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of gabapentin (GBP), lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), tiagabine (TGB), topiramate (TPM) and vigabatrin (VGB) for epilepsy in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Internet resources. Pharmaceutical company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were screened and quality assessed. Separate analyses assessed clinical effectiveness, serious, rare and long-term adverse events and cost-effectiveness. An integrated economic analysis incorporating information on costs and effects of newer and older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was performed to give direct comparisons of long-term costs and benefits. RESULTS: A total of 212 studies were included in the review. All included systematic reviews were Cochrane reviews and of good quality. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was variable. Assessment was hampered by poor reporting of methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding. Few of the non-randomised studies were of good quality. The main weakness of the economic evaluations was inappropriate use of the cost-minimisation design. The included systematic reviews reported that newer AEDs were effective as adjunctive therapy compared to placebo. For newer versus older drugs, data were available for all three monotherapy AEDs, although data for OXC and TPM were limited. There was limited, poor-quality evidence of a significant improvement in cognitive function with LTG and OXC compared with older AEDs. However, there were no consistent statistically significant differences in other clinical outcomes, including proportion of seizure-free patients. No studies assessed effectiveness of AEDs in people with intellectual disabilities or in pregnant women. There was very little evidence to assess the effectiveness of AEDs in the elderly; no significant differences were found between LTG and carbamazepine monotherapy. Sixty-seven RCTs compared adjunctive therapy with placebo, older AEDs or other newer AEDs. For newer AEDs versus placebo, a trend was observed in favour of newer drugs, and there was evidence of statistically significant differences in proportion of responders favouring newer drugs. However, it was not possible to assess long-term effectiveness. Most trials were conducted in patients with partial seizures. For newer AEDs versus older drugs, there was no evidence to assess the effectiveness of LEV, LTG or OXC, and evidence for other newer drugs was limited to single studies. Trials only included patients with partial seizures and follow-up was relatively short. There was no evidence to assess effectiveness of adjunctive LEV, OXC or TPM versus other newer drugs, and there were no time to event or cognitive data. No studies assessed the effectiveness of adjunctive AEDs in the elderly or pregnant women. There was some evidence from one study (GBP versus LTG) that both drugs have some beneficial effect on behaviour in people with learning disabilities. Eighty RCTs reported the incidence of adverse events. There was no consistent or convincing evidence to draw any conclusions concerning relative safety and tolerability of newer AEDs compared with each other, older AEDs or placebo. The integrated economic analysis for monotherapy for newly diagnosed patients with partial seizures showed that older AEDs were more likely to be cost-effective, although there was considerable uncertainty in these results. The integrated analysis suggested that newer AEDs used as adjunctive therapy for refractory patients with partial seizures were more effective and more costly than continuing with existing treatment alone. Combination therapy, involving new AEDs, may be cost-effective at a threshold willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) greater than 20,000 pounds, depending on patients' previous treatment history. There was, again, considerable uncertainty in these results. There were few data available to determine effectiveness of treatments for patients with generalised seizures. LTG and VPA showed similar health benefits when used as monotherapy. VPA was less costly and was likely to be cost-effective. The analysis indicated that TPM might be cost-effective when used as an adjunctive therapy, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 34,500 pounds compared with continuing current treatment alone. CONCLUSIONS: There was little good-quality evidence from clinical trials to support the use of newer monotherapy or adjunctive therapy AEDs over older drugs, or to support the use of one newer AED in preference to another. In general, data relating to clinical effectiveness, safety and tolerability failed to demonstrate consistent and statistically significant differences between the drugs. The exception was comparisons between newer adjunctive AEDs and placebo, where significant differences favoured newer AEDs. However, trials often had relatively short-term treatment durations and often failed to limit recruitment to either partial or generalised onset seizures, thus limiting the applicability of the data. Newer AEDs, used as monotherapy, may be cost-effective for the treatment of patients who have experienced adverse events with older AEDs, who have failed to respond to the older drugs, or where such drugs are contraindicated. The integrated economic analysis also suggested that newer AEDs used as adjunctive therapy may be cost-effective compared with the continuing current treatment alone given a QALY of about 20,000 pounds. There is a need for more direct comparisons of the different AEDs within clinical trials, considering different treatment sequences within both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Length of follow-up also needs to be considered. Trials are needed that recruit patients with either partial or generalised seizures; that investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in patients with generalised onset seizures and that investigate effectiveness in specific populations of epilepsy patients, as well as studies evaluating cognitive outcomes to use more stringent testing protocols and to adopt a more consistent approach in assessing outcomes. Further research is also required to assess the quality of life within trials of epilepsy therapy using preference-based measures of outcomes that generate cost-effectiveness data. Future RCTs should use CONSORT guidelines; and observational data to provide information on the use of AEDs in actual practice, including details of treatment sequences and doses.
Adolescent↗
Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and decision-analytical modelling.
OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritise key areas of clinical uncertainty regarding the medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in current UK practice. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Consultations with clinical advisors. Postal survey of cardiologists. REVIEW METHODS: Potential areas of important uncertainty were identified and 'decision problems' prioritised. A systematic literature review was carried out using standard methods. The constructed decision model consisted of a short-term phase that applied the results of the systematic review and a long-term phase that included relevant information from a UK observational study to extrapolate estimated costs and effects. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the dependence of the results on baseline parameters, using alternative data sources. Expected value of information analysis was undertaken to estimate the expected value of perfect information associated with the decision problem. This provided an upper bound on the monetary value associated with additional research in the area. RESULTS: Seven current areas of clinical uncertainty (decision problems) in the drug treatment of unstable angina patients were identified. The agents concerned were clopidogrel, low molecular weight heparin, hirudin and intravenous glycoprotein antagonists (GPAs). Twelve published clinical guidelines for unstable angina or non-ST elevation ACS were identified, but few contained recommendations about the specified decision problems. The postal survey of clinicians showed that the greatest disagreement existed for the use of small molecule GPAs, and the greatest uncertainty existed for decisions relating to the use of abciximab (a large molecule GPA). Overall, decision problems concerning the GPA class of drugs were considered to be the highest priority for further study. Selected papers describing the clinical efficacy of treatment were divided into three groups, each representing an alternative strategy. The strategy involving the use of GPAs as part of the initial medical management of all non-ST elevation ACS was the optimal choice, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 5738 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with no use of GPAs. Stochastic analysis showed that if the health service is willing to pay 10,000 pounds per additional QALY, the probability of this strategy being cost-effective was around 82%, increasing to 95% at a threshold of 50,000 pounds per QALY. A sensitivity analysis including an additional strategy of using GPAs as part of initial medical management only in patients at particular high risk (as defined by age, ST depression or diabetes) showed that this additional strategy was yet more cost-effective, with an ICER of 3996 pounds per QALY compared with no treatment with GPA. Value of information analysis suggested that there was considerable merit in additional research to reduce the level of uncertainty in the optimal decision. At a threshold of 10,000 pounds per QALY, the maximum potential value of such research in the base case was calculated as 12.7 million pounds per annum for the UK as a whole. Taking account of the greater uncertainty in the sensitivity analyses including clopidogrel, this figure was increased to approximately 50 million pounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the use of GPAs in all non-ST elevation ACS patients as part of their initial medical management. Sensitivity analysis showed that virtually all of the benefit could be realised by treating only high-risk patients. Further clarification of the optimum role of GPAs in the UK NHS depends on the availability of further high-quality observational and trial data. Value of information analysis derived from the model suggests that a relatively large investment in such research may be worthwhile. Further research should focus on the identification of the characteristics of patients who benefit most from GPAs as part of medical management, the comparison of GPAs with clopidogrel as an adjunct to standard care, follow-up cohort studies of the costs and outcomes of high-risk non-ST elevation ACS over several years, and exploring how clinicians' decisions combine a normative evidence-based decision model with their own personal behavioural perspective.
Acute Disease↗
Is hydrotherapy cost-effective? A randomised controlled trial of combined hydrotherapy programmes compared with physiotherapy land techniques in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of combined hydrotherapy and land-based physiotherapy (combined) with land-based physiotherapy only (land) on cost, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and outcome of disease in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Also to determine the cost-effectiveness of combined hydrotherapy and land-based physiotherapy in JIA. DESIGN: A multicentre randomised controlled, partially blinded trial was designed with 100 patients in a control arm receiving land-based physiotherapy only (land group) and 100 patients in an intervention arm receiving a combination of hydrotherapy and land-based physiotherapy (combined group). SETTING: Three tertiary centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 4-19 years diagnosed more than 3 months with idiopathic arthritides, onset before their 16th birthday, stable on medication with at least one active joint. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the combined and land groups received 16 1-hour treatment sessions over 2 weeks followed by local physiotherapy attendances for 2 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease improvement defined as a decrease of > or =30% in any three of six core set variables without there being a 30% increase in more than one of the remaining three variables was used as the primary outcome measure and assessed at 2 months following completion of intervention. Health services resource use (in- and outpatient care, GP visits, drugs, interventions, and investigations) and productivity costs (parents' time away from paid work) were collected at 6 months follow-up. HRQoL was measured at baseline and 2 and 6 months following intervention using the EQ-5D, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. Secondary outcome measures at 2 and 6 months included cardiovascular fitness, pain, isometric muscle strength and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were recruited into the trial and received treatment. Two months after intervention 47% patients in the combined group and 61% patients in the land group had improved disease with 11 and 5% with worsened disease, respectively. The analysis showed no significant differences in mean costs and QALYs between the two groups. The combined group had slightly lower mean costs (-6.91 pounds Sterling) and lower mean QALYs (-0.0478, 95% confidence interval -0.11294 to 0.0163 based on 1000 bootstrap replications). All secondary measures demonstrated a mean improvement in both groups, with the combined group showing greater improvements in physical aspects of HRQoL and cardiovascular fitness. CONCLUSIONS: JIA is a disease in which a cure is not available. This research demonstrates a beneficial effect from both combined hydrotherapy and land-based physiotherapy treatment and land-based physiotherapy treatment alone in JIA without any exacerbation of disease, indicating that treatments are safe. The caveat to the results of the cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy analysis is that the restricted sample size could have prevented a true difference being detected between the groups. Nevertheless, there appears to be no evidence to justify the costs of building pools or initiating new services specifically for use in this disease. However, this conclusion may not apply to patients with unremitting active disease who could not be entered into the trial because of specified exclusion criteria. For this group, hydrotherapy or combined treatment may still be the only physiotherapy option. Further research is suggested into: the investigation and development of appropriate and sensitive outcome measures for use in future hydrotherapy and physiotherapy trials of JIA; preliminary studies of methodologies in complex interventions such as physiotherapy and hydrotherapy to improve recruitment and ensure protocol is acceptable to patients and carers; hydrotherapy in the most common paediatric user group, children with neurological dysfunction, ensuring appropriate outcome measures are available and methodologies previously tried; patient satisfaction and compliance in land-based physiotherapy and hydrotherapy and European studies of hydrotherapy in rare disorders such as JIA.
Adolescent↗
A randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost of a patient orientated self management approach to chronic inflammatory bowel disease.
OBJECTIVES: We developed a patient centred approach to chronic disease self management by providing information designed to promote patient choice. We then conducted a randomised controlled trial of the approach in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to assess whether it could alter clinical outcome and affect health service use. DESIGN: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in the outpatient departments of 19 hospitals with randomisation by treatment centre, 10 control sites, and nine intervention sites. For patients at intervention sites, an individual self management plan was negotiated and written information provided. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 700 patients with established inflammatory bowel disease were recruited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures recorded at one year were: quality of life, health service resource use, and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included measures of enablement-confidence to cope with the condition. RESULTS: One year following the intervention, self managing patients had made fewer hospital visits (difference -1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.43 to -0.65); p<0.001) without increase in the number of primary care visits, and quality of life was maintained without evidence of anxiety about the programme. The two groups were similar with respect to satisfaction with consultations. Immediately after the initial consultation, those who had undergone self management training reported greater confidence in being able to cope with their condition (difference 0.90 (95% CI 0.12-1.68); p<0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of this approach for the management of chronic disease such as IBD in the NHS and other managed health care organisations would considerably reduce health provision costs and benefit disease control.
Adaptation, Psychological↗
A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases; industry submissions made to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised trials and economic evaluations that evaluated the effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine or valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder were selected for inclusion. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a Microsoft Access database and checked for quality and accuracy by a second. The quality of the cost-effectiveness studies was assessed using a checklist updated from that developed by Drummond and colleagues. Relative risk and mean difference data were presented as Forest plots but only pooled where this made sense clinically and statistically. Studies were grouped by drug and, within each drug, by comparator used. Chi-squared tests of heterogeneity were performed for the outcomes if pooling was indicated. A probabilistic model was developed to estimate costs from the perspective of the NHS, and health outcomes in terms of response rate, based on an improvement of at least 50% in a patient's baseline manic symptoms derived from an interview-based mania assessment scale. The model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the alternative drugs when used as part of treatment for the acute manic episode only. RESULTS: Eighteen randomised trials met the inclusion criteria. Aspects of three of the quetiapine studies were commercial-in-confidence. The quality of the included trials was limited and overall, key methodological criteria were not met in most trials. Quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior to placebo in reducing manic symptoms, but may cause side-effects. There appears to be little difference between these treatments and lithium in terms of effectiveness, but quetiapine is associated with somnolence and weight gain, whereas lithium is associated with tremor. Olanzapine as adjunct therapy to mood stabilisers may be more effective than placebo in reducing mania and improving global health, but it is associated with more dry mouth, somnolence, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor and speech disorder. There was little difference between these treatments and haloperidol in reducing mania, but haloperidol was associated with more extrapyramidal side-effects and negative implications for health-related quality of life. Intramuscular olanzapine and lorazepam were equally effective and safe in one very short (24 hour) trial. Valproate semisodium and carbamazepine were equally effective and safe in one small trial in children. Olanzapine may be more effective than valproate semisodium in reducing mania, but was associated with more dry mouth, increased appetite, oedema, somnolence, speech disorder, Parkinson-like symptoms and weight gain. Valproate semisodium was associated with more nausea than olanzapine. The results from the base-case analysis demonstrate that choice of optimal strategy is dependent on the maximum that the health service is prepared to pay per additional responder. For a figure of less than 7179 British pounds per additional responder, haloperidol is the optimal decision; for a spend in excess of this, it would be olanzapine. Under the most favourable scenario in relation to the costs of responders and non-responders beyond the 3-week period considered in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olanzapine is reduced to 1236 British pounds. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with placebo, quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior in reducing manic symptoms, but all drugs are associated with adverse events. In comparison with lithium, no significant differences were found between the three drugs in terms of effectiveness, and all were associated with adverse events. Several limitations of the cost-effectiveness analysis exist, which inevitably means that the results should be treated with some caution. There remains a need for well-conducted, randomised, double-blind head-to-head comparisons of drugs used in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder and their cost-effectiveness. Participant demographic, diagnostic characteristics, the treatment of mania in children, the use of adjunctive therapy and long-term safety issues in the elderly population, and acute and long-term treatment are also subjects for further study.
Antimanic Agents↗
EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy.
OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no significant difference between laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), abdominal hysterectomy (AH) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with regard to each of the outcome measures of the trial, and also to assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. DESIGN: Patients were allocated to either the vaginal or abdominal trial by the individual surgeon according to their usual clinical practice. After allocation patients were then randomised to receive either LH or the default procedure in an unbalanced 2:1 manner. SETTING: Forty-three surgeons from 28 centres throughout the UK and two centres in South Africa took part in the study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with gynaecological symptoms that, in the opinion of the gynaecologist and the patient, justified hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Of 1380 patients recruited to the study, 876 were included in the AH trial and 504 in the VH trial. In the AH trial, 584 patients had a laparoscopic type of hysterectomy (designated ALH) and 292 had a standard AH. In the VH trial 336 had a VLH and 168 had a standard VH. A cost--utility analysis was undertaken based on a 1-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EQ-5D. RESULTS: Compared with AH, LH was associated with a higher rate of major complications, less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay, but took longer to perform. Securing the ovarian pedicles with laparoscopic sutures was used in only 7% of cases but was associated with 25% of the complications. At the 6 weeks postoperative point, ALH was associated with a significantly better physical component of the SF-12 (QoL questionnaire), better body image scale scores and a significantly increased frequency of sexual intercourse than AH. These differences were not observed at either 4 or 12 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in any measured outcome between LH and VH except that VLH took longer to perform and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology. Compared with VH, VLH had a higher mean cost per patient of GBP401 and higher mean QALYs of 0.0015, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of GBP267,333. The probability that VLH is cost-effective was less than 50% for a large range of willingness to pay values for an additional QALY. Compared with AH, ALH had a higher mean cost per patient of GBP186 and higher mean QALYs of 0.007, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of GBP26,571. CONCLUSIONS: ALH is associated with a significantly higher risk of major complications and takes longer to perform than AH. ALH is, however, associated with less pain, quicker recovery and better short-term QoL after surgery than AH. The cost-effectiveness of ALH is finely balanced and is also influenced by the choice of reusable versus disposable equipment. Individual surgeons must decide between patient-orientated benefits and the risk of severe complications. VLH was not cost-effective relative to VH. Recommendations for future research include the application and relevance of QoL measures following hysterectomy, and long-term follow-up; patient preferences; reducing complication rates; improving gynaecological surgical training; surgeon effect in surgery trials; care pathways for hysterectomy; additional pathology identification in LH and meta-analysis/further trial of VH versus LH.
Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the benefits of using appropriate decision-analytic methods and value of information analysis (DA-VOI). Also to establish the feasibility and implications of applying these methods to inform the prioritisation process of the NHS Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, and possibly extending their use therein. DATA SOURCES: Three research topics that were considered by the HTA panels in the September 2002 and February 2003 prioritisation rounds. REVIEW METHODS: A brief and non-technical overview of DA-VOI methods was circulated to the panels and Prioritisation Strategy Group (PSG). For each case study the results were presented to the panels and the PSG in the form of brief case-study reports. Feedback on the DA-VOI analysis and its presentation was obtained in the form of completed questionnaires from panel members, and reports from panel senior lecturers and PSG members. RESULTS: Although none of the research topics identified met all of the original selection criteria for inclusion as case studies in the pilot, it was possible to construct appropriate decision-analytic models and conduct probabilistic analysis for each topic. In each case, the tasks were completed within the time-frame required by the existing HTA research prioritisation process. The brief case-study reports provided a description of the decision problem, a summary of the current evidence base and a characterisation of decision uncertainty in the form of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Estimates of value of information for the decision problem were presented for relevant patient groups and clinical settings, as well as the value of information associated with particular model inputs. The implications for the value of research in each of the areas were presented in general terms. Details were also provided on what the analysis suggested regarding the design of any future research in terms of features such as the relevant patient groups and comparators, and whether experimental design was likely to be required. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study showed that, even with very short timelines, it is possible to undertake DA-VOI that can feed into the priority-setting process that has been developed for the HTA programme. There are however a number of areas that need to be established at the beginning of the process, such as clarification of the nature of the decision problem for which additional research is being considered, explicitness about which existing data should be used and how data that exhibit particular weaknesses should be down-weighted in the analysis. Other areas, including optimum application of researcher time, integrating the vignette (a summary of the clinical problem and existing evidence) and the use of DA-VOI, training, use of sensitivity analyses, and deployment of clinical expertise, are also considered in terms of the potential implementation of DA-VOI within the HTA programme. Recommendations for further research include how literature searching should focus on those variables to which the model's results are most sensitive and with the highest expected value of perfect information; methods of evidence synthesis (multiple parameter synthesis) to consider the evidence surrounding multiple comparators and networks of evidence; and ways in which the value of sample information can be used by the NHS HTA programme and other research funders to decide on the most efficient design of new evaluative research. There is also a need for an analytical framework to be developed that can jointly address the question of whether additional resources would better be devoted to additional research or interventions to change clinical practice.
Biomedical Technology↗
Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
OBJECTIVES: To identify existing guidelines and develop a synthesised guideline plus accompanying checklist. In addition to provide guidance on key theoretical, methodological and practical issues and consider the implications of this research for what might be expected of future decision-analytic models. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of existing good practice guidelines was undertaken to identify and summarise guidelines currently available for assessing the quality of decision-analytic models that have been undertaken for health technology assessment. A synthesised good practice guidance and accompanying checklist was developed. Two specific methods areas in decision modelling were considered. The first method's topic is the identification of parameter estimates from published literature. Parameter searches were developed and piloted using a case-study model. The second topic relates to bias in parameter estimates; that is, how to adjust estimates of treatment effect from observational studies where there are risks of selection bias. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify those studies looking at quantification of bias in parameter estimates and the implication of this bias. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and consolidated into a single set of brief statements of good practice. From this, a checklist was developed and applied to three independent decision-analytic models. Although the checklist provided excellent guidance on some key issues for model evaluation, it was too general to pick up on the specific nuances of each model. The searches that were developed helped to identify important data for inclusion in the model. However, the quality of life searches proved to be problematic: the published search filters did not focus on those measures specific to cost-effectiveness analysis and although the strategies developed as part of this project were more successful few data were found. Of the 11 studies meeting the criteria on the effect of selection bias, five concluded that a non-randomised trial design is associated with bias and six studies found 'similar' estimates of treatment effects from observational studies or non-randomised clinical trials and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One purpose of developing the synthesised guideline and checklist was to provide a framework for critical appraisal by the various parties involved in the health technology assessment process. First, the guideline and checklist can be used by groups that are reviewing other analysts' models and, secondly, the guideline and checklist could be used by the various analysts as they develop their models (to use it as a check on how they are developing and reporting their analyses). The Expert Advisory Group (EAG) that was convened to discuss the potential role of the guidance and checklist felt that, in general, the guidance and checklist would be a useful tool, although the checklist is not meant to be used exclusively to determine a model's quality, and so should not be used as a substitute for critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The review of current guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, in other areas conflicting attributes are presented in different guidelines. In general, the checklist appears to perform well, in terms of identifying those aspects of the model that should be of particular concern to the reader. The checklist cannot, however, provide answers to the appropriateness of the model structure and structural assumptions, as these may be seen as a general problem with generic checklists and do not reflect any shortcoming with the synthesised guidance and checklist developed here. The assessment of the checklist, as well as feedback from the EAG, indicated the importance of its use in conjunction with a more general checklist or guidelines on economic evaluation. Further methods research into the following areas would be valuable: the quantification of selection bias in non-controlled studies and in controlled observational studies; the level of bias in the different non-RCT study designs; a comparison of results from RCTs with those from other non-randomised studies; assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways to adjust for bias in a decision model; and how to prioritise searching for parameter estimates.
Benchmarking↗
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative antiplatelet agents, clopidogrel and modified-release (MR)-dipyridamole, relative to prophylactic doses of aspirin for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A total of 2906 titles and abstracts were rigorously screened and 441 studies were assessed in detail. Two RCTs were identified. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, eight reviews were identified. The results were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. No additional clinical effectiveness data were presented in either of two company submissions. All economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. Following this analysis, if the existing models (company or published) were not sufficient, a de novo model or modified versions of the models were developed. RESULTS: In the CAPRIE trial the point estimate for the primary outcome, i.e. ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or vascular death, favoured clopidogrel over aspirin, but the boundaries of the confidence intervals raise the possibility that clopidogrel is not more beneficial than aspirin. In terms of the secondary outcomes reported, there was a non-significant trend in favour of clopidogrel over aspirin but the boundaries of the confidence intervals on the relative risks all crossed unity. There was no difference in the number of patients ever reporting any bleeding disorder in the clopidogrel group compared with the aspirin group. The incidences of rash and diarrhoea were statistically significantly higher in the clopidogrel group than the aspirin group. Patients in the aspirin group had a higher incidence of indigestion/nausea/vomiting than patients in the clopidogrel group. Haematological adverse events were rare in both the clopidogrel and aspirin groups. No cases of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura were reported in either group. Treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone did not significantly reduce the risk of any of the primary outcomes reported in ESPS-2 compared with treatment with aspirin. ASA-MR-dipyridamole was significantly more effective than aspirin alone in patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) at reducing the outcome of stroke and marginally more effective at reducing stroke and/or death. Treatment with ASA-MR-dipyridamole did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of death compared to treatment with aspirin. The number of strokes was statistically significantly reduced in the ASA-MR-dipyridamole group compared with the MR-dipyridamole group. In terms of the other primary outcomes, stroke and/or death and death, the results favoured treatment with ASA-MR-dipyridamole but the findings were not statistically significant. There was no difference in the number of bleeding complications between the ASA-MR-dipyridamole and aspirin groups. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly lower in the MR-dipyridamole treatment group. More patients in the MR-dipyridamole treatment groups experienced headaches compared to patients receiving treatment with aspirin alone. The York model assessed the cost-effectiveness of differing combinations of treatment strategies in four patient subgroups, under a number of different scenarios. The results of the model were sensitive to the assumptions made in the alternative scenarios, in particular the impact of therapy on non-vascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel was marginally more effective than aspirin at reducing the risk of ischaemic stroke, MI or vascular death in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, however, it did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of vascular death or death from any cause compared with aspirin. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of bleeding complications experienced in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups. MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin was superior to aspirin alone at reducing the risk of stroke and marginally more effective at reducing the risk of stroke and/or death. Compared with treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone, MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin significantly reduced the risk of stroke. Treatment with MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of death compared with aspirin. Compared with treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone, bleeding complications were statistically significantly higher in patients treated with aspirin and MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin. Due to the assumptions that have to be made, no conclusions could be drawn about the relative effectiveness of MR-dipyridamole, alone or in combination with aspirin, and clopidogrel from the adjusted indirect comparison. The following would apply for a cost of up to GBP20,000-40,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year. For the stroke and TIA subgroups, ASA-MR-dipyridamole would be the most cost-effective therapy given a 2-year treatment duration as long as all patients were not left disabled by their initial (qualifying) stroke. For a lifetime treatment duration, ASA-MR-dipyridamole would be considered more cost-effective than aspirin as long as treatment effects on non-vascular deaths are not considered and all patients were not left disabled by their initial stroke. In patients left disabled by their initial stroke, aspirin is the most cost-effective therapy. Clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole alone would not be considered cost-effective under any scenario. For the MI and peripheral arterial disease subgroups, clopidogrel would be considered cost-effective for a treatment duration of 2 years. For a lifetime treatment duration, clopidogrel would be considered more cost-effective than aspirin as long as treatment effects on non-vascular deaths are not considered. It is suggested that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin should be evaluated for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. Also randomised, direct comparisons of clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin are required to inform the treatment of patients with a history of stroke and TIA, plus trials that compare treatment with clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole for the secondary prevention of vascular events in patients who demonstrate a genuine intolerance to aspirin.
Aspirin↗
Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel used in combination with standard therapy including aspirin, compared with standard therapy alone for the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were selected using rigorous criteria. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to criteria based on NHS CRD Report No. 4, and the quality of systematic reviews was assessed according to the guidelines for the Database of Reviews of Effect (DARE) criteria. The quality of economic evaluations was assessed according to a specifically tailored checklist. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in combination with standard therapy compared with standard therapy alone were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of the included studies. In the economic evaluations, a cost-effectiveness model was constructed using the best available evidence to determine cost-effectiveness in a UK setting. RESULTS: One RCT (the CURE trial) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of high quality and showed that clopidogrel in addition to aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo plus aspirin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS for the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke over the 9-month treatment period. However, clopidogrel was associated with a significantly higher number of episodes of both major and minor bleeding. The results from the five systematic reviews that assessed the adverse events associated with long-term aspirin use showed that aspirin was associated with a significantly higher incidence of haemorrhagic stroke, extracranial haemorrhage and gastrointestinal haemorrhage compared with placebo. Of the cost-effectiveness evidence reviewed, only the manufacturer's submission was considered relevant from the perspective of the NHS. The review of this evidence highlighted potential limitations within the submission in its use of data and in the model structure used. These limitations led to the development of a new model with the aim of providing a more reliable estimate of the cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. This model indicated that clopidogrel appears cost-effective compared with standard care alone in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS as long as the NHS is willing to pay GBP6078 per quality of life year (QALY). The results were most sensitive to the inclusion of additional strategies that assessed alternative treatment durations with clopidogrel. Although treatment with clopidogrel for 12 months remained cost-effective for the overall cohort, provisional findings indicate that the shorter treatment durations may be more cost-effective in patients at low risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the CURE trial indicate that clopidogrel in combination with aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo combined with aspirin in a wide range of patients with ACS. This benefit was largely related to a reduction in Q-wave myocardial infarction. There was no statistically significant benefit in relation to mortality. The trial data suggested that a substantial part of the benefit derived from clopidogrel is achieved by 3 months, with a further small benefit over the remaining 9 months of chronic treatment. The results from the base-case model suggest that treatment with clopidogrel as an adjunct to standard therapy (including aspirin) for 12 months, compared with standard therapy alone, is cost-effective in non-ST elevation ACS patients as long as the health service is willing to pay GBP6078 per additional QALY. However, although treatment with clopidogrel for 12 months remained cost-effective for the overall cohort, provisional findings indicate that the shorter treatment durations may be more cost-effective in patients at low risk. To estimate the exact length of time that clopidogrel in addition to standard therapy should be prescribed for patients with non-ST-segment ACS would require a prospective trial that randomised patients to various durations of therapy. This would accurately assess whether a 'rebound' phenomenon occurs in patients if clopidogrel were stopped after 3 months of treatment.
Acute Disease↗
A cost-utility analysis of patients undergoing orthognathic treatment for the management of dentofacial disharmony.
INTRODUCTION: Management of dentofacial discrepancies using orthognathic treatment is now a common procedure in the United Kingdom. Although the benefits of orthognathic intervention are often considered, the cost implications have not been investigated to our knowledge. This study is a cost-utility analysis of orthognathic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients were interviewed five times during treatment using the time trade-off (TTO) method to establish utility values. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained as a result of treatment were calculated and discounted. The resource use was calculated for each of the 21 patients individually and the costs subjected to both a sensitivity analysis and discounting. The incremental mean cost per additional QALY was calculated (as compared with a 'no treatment' approach). RESULTS: The incremental cost for each additional QALY was 561 pounds sterling for the groups combined, based on mean additional costs and QALYs (546 pounds sterling for the bimaxillary group and 617 pounds sterling for the single jaw group). DISCUSSION: Orthognathic treatment seems to provide good outcomes at relatively low cost. Even allowing for the uncertainty in mean costs and QALYs, there is a high probability of treatment being cost-effective. Cost-utility analysis is still a relatively new technique in dentistry and further studies should be encouraged.
Adult↗
A randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a package comprising a patient-orientated, evidence-based self-help guidebook and patient-centred consultations on disease management and satisfaction in inflammatory bowel disease.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if a whole systems approach to self-management improves clinical outcomes and leads to cost-effective use of NHS services. DESIGN: Nineteen hospitals were randomised to 10 control sites and nine intervention sites. Consultants from intervention sites received training in patient-centred care before recruitment and introduced the intervention to eligible patients. Patients at the control sites were recruited and went on to have an ordinary consultation. Qualitative interviews were undertaken to obtain an in-depth understanding of patients' and consultants' experience of the intervention. SETTING: Follow-up outpatient clinics at 19 hospitals in the north-west of England. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred patients (297 at intervention sites and 403 at control sites) with established ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease, aged 16 years and over, and able to write in English. INTERVENTIONS: Consultants were trained to provide a patient-centred approach to care. Guidebooks on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease were developed with patients prior to the study. Patients prepared a written self-management plan and self-referred to services based on a self-evaluation of their need for advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of hospital outpatient consultation, quality of life (QoL) and acceptability to patients. Health service resource use and assessed cost effectiveness using the EQ-5D. RESULTS: After 1 year, the intervention resulted in fewer hospital visits, without change in the number of primary care visits. Patients felt more able to cope with their condition. The intervention produced no reduction in QoL and did not raise anxiety. The intervention group reported fewer symptom relapses; 74% of patients in the intervention group indicated a preference to continue the system. Qualitative results showed the guidebook was effective but organisational limitations constrained patient-centred aspects of the intervention for some. Cost-effectiveness analyses favoured self-management over standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Further use of this method in chronic disease management seems likely to improve overall patient satisfaction and reduce health expenditure without evidence of adverse effect on disease control. Further attention needs to be given to self-referral and access arrangements and a re-distribution of control to patients through increased adherence to patient-centred norms on the part of consultants. Future research is recommended to evaluate the operating systems within secondary and primary care that would allow self-managers to self-refer and to keep them informed of new treatments, also to explore models for training health professionals in self-care methods, to study long-term effects of self-management in chronic disease and to transfer this approach to other chronic conditions.
Adolescent↗
Decision-making by healthcare payers.
Healthcare payers are faced with the need to allocate finite resources to maximize population health. To assist in decision-making, healthcare payers are increasingly using health outcomes information and economic analyses. Healthcare payers are often under pressure to make early decisions (around the time of product launch), when the evidence available is imperfect. They must also consider the equitable distribution of resources between therapeutic areas. Tools to help healthcare payers reach transparent and objective decisions include cost-utility analysis and decision modelling. In practice, healthcare payers in different countries (for example, Ireland, France and Canada) vary in the approaches taken to reimbursement and formulary listing decisions. The key to decision-making among healthcare payers is the provision of appropriate evidence, comparing any new treatment approach to current best practice, in situations corresponding to real life. When data assumptions have to be made, these should be clearly stated with consideration of the impact of varying the assumptions. The impact on budgets should also be considered.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗
Coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for angina. Health service costs based on the second Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial.
AIMS: The second Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial compares an initial strategy of PTCA with continued medical management in patients with arteriographically proven coronary artery disease. This paper employs resource use data collected in the trial to compare the health service costs of the two strategies over 3 years follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: 1018 patients were randomized, 504 to PTCA and 514 to continued medical management. Health service resource use data were collected prospectively on all patients. Hospital unit costs were estimated in collaboration with five U.K. centres. PTCA patients underwent more subsequent coronary arteriograms, but subsequent (non-randomized) PTCAs were more common in patients randomized to medical management (118 procedures in 102 patients) compared to those randomized to PTCA (73 procedures in 62 patients). The likelihood of undergoing CABG was similar in the two groups. The use of antianginal medications was higher in patients randomized to an initial strategy of medical management. There was an overall mean additional cost per patient over 3 years in patients randomized to PTCA of pound 2685 (95% CI pound 2074- pound 3322). CONCLUSIONS: In RITA-2, the cost of an initial strategy of PTCA exceeded the cost of an initial strategy of medical management by 74% over 3 years.
Angina Pectoris↗