EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS ACROSS EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 59-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oyinlola Oyebode ◽  
Zoe Garrett ◽  
Elizabeth George ◽  
Agnese Cangini ◽  
Luisa Anna Adele Muscolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Level Of Detail ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Target Disease ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Effectiveness Assessment

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare evidence requirements for health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals by national agencies across Europe responsible for reimbursement decisions focusing specifically on relative effectiveness assessment.Methods: Evidence requirements from thirty-three European countries were requested and twenty-nine national agencies provided documents to review. Data were extracted from national documents (manufacturer's submission templates and associated guidance) into a purpose-made framework with categories covering information about the health condition, the technology, clinical effectiveness and safety.Results: The level of detail in the required evidence varies considerably across countries. Some countries include specific questions while others request information under general headings. Some countries include all information in a single document, which may or may not include guidance on how to complete the template. Others have specific guidance documents or methods and process manuals that help with the completion of the submission templates. Despite differences in quantity and detail, the content of the evidence requirements is broadly similar. All countries ask for information on the health technology, target disease, and clinical effectiveness and safety. However, one country only requests clinical effectiveness information as part of cost-effectiveness analyses. We found twenty-six evidence requirements for which generic answers may apply across borders and nineteen in which countries requested nationally specific information.Conclusions: This work suggests that it would be possible to put together a minimum set of evidence requirements for HTA to support reimbursement decisions across Europe which could facilitate collaboration between jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Seal or Varnish? A randomised controlled trial to determine the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivor Gordon Chestnutt ◽  
Simon Hutchings ◽  
Rebecca Playle ◽  
Sarah Morgan-Trimmer ◽  
Deborah Fitzsimmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Fluoride Varnish ◽  
Relative Cost ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Background Fissure sealant (FS) and fluoride varnish (FV) have been shown to be effective in preventing dental caries when tested against a no-treatment control. However, the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars (FPMs) in 6- and 7-year-olds and to determine their acceptability. Design A randomised controlled allocation-blinded clinical trial with two parallel arms. Setting A targeted population programme using mobile dental clinics (MDCs) in schools located in areas of high social and economic deprivation in South Wales. Participants In total, 1016 children were randomised, but one parent subsequently withdrew permission and so the analysis was based on 1015 children. The randomisation of participants was stratified by school and balanced for sex and primary dentition baseline caries levels using minimisation in a 1 : 1 ratio for treatments. A random component was added to the minimisation algorithm, such that it was not completely deterministic. Of the participants, 514 were randomised to receive FS and 502 were randomised to receive FV. Interventions Resin-based FS was applied to caries-free FPMs and maintained at 6-monthly intervals. FV was applied at baseline and at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 years. Main outcome measures The proportion of children developing caries into dentine (decayed, missing, filled teeth in permanent dentition, i.e. D4–6MFT) on any one of up to four treated FPMs after 36 months. The assessors were blinded to treatment allocation; however, the presence or absence of FS at assessment would obviously indicate the probable treatment received. Economic measures established the costs and budget impact of FS and FV and the relative cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Qualitative interviews determined the acceptability of the interventions. Results At 36 months, 835 (82%) children remained in the trial: 417 in the FS arm and 418 in the FV arm. The proportion of children who developed caries into dentine on a least one FPM was lower in the FV arm (73; 17.5%) than in the FS arm (82, 19.6%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.21; p = 0.35] but the difference was not statistically significant. The results were similar when the numbers of newly decayed teeth (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) and tooth surfaces (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.21) were examined. Trial fidelity was high: 95% of participants received five or six of the six scheduled treatments. Between 74% and 93% of sealants (upper and lower teeth) were intact at 36 months. The costs of the two technologies showed a small but statistically significant difference; the mean cost to the NHS (including intervention costs) per child was £500 for FS, compared with £432 for FV, a difference of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) in favour of FV. The budget impact analysis suggests that there is a cost saving of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) per child treated if using FV compared with the application of FS over this time period. An acceptability score completed by the children immediately after treatment and subsequent interviews demonstrated that both interventions were acceptable to the children. No adverse effects were reported. Limitations There are no important limitations to this study. Conclusions In a community oral health programme utilising MDCs and targeted at children with high caries risk, the twice-yearly application of FV resulted in caries prevention that is not significantly different from that obtained by applying and maintaining FSs after 36 months. FV proved less expensive. Future work The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV following the cessation of active intervention merits investigation. Trial registration EudraCT number 2010-023476-23, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17029222 and UKCRN reference 9273. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals TRAPEZE: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy with zoledronic acid, strontium-89, or both, in men with bony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas James ◽  
Sarah Pirrie ◽  
Ann Pope ◽  
Darren Barton ◽  
Lazaros Andronis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundBony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis and high morbidity. TRAPEZE was a two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial of zoledronic acid (ZA) and strontium-89 (Sr-89), each combined with docetaxel. All have palliative benefits, are used to control bone symptoms and are used with docetaxel to prolong survival. ZA, approved on the basis of reducing skeletal-related events (SREs), is commonly combined with docetaxel in practice, although evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Sr-89, approved for controlling metastatic pain and reducing need for subsequent bone treatments, is generally palliatively used in patients unfit for chemotherapy. Phase II analysis confirmed the safety and feasibility of combining these agents. TRAPEZE aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each agent.MethodsPatients were randomised to receive six cycles of docetaxel plus prednisolone: alone, with ZA, with a single Sr-89 dose after cycle 6, or with both. Primary outcomes were clinical progression-free survival (CPFS: time to pain progression, SRE or death) and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes were SRE-free interval (SREFI), total SREs, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Log-rank test and Cox regression modelling were used to determine clinical effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the NHS perspective and expressed as cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An additional analysis was carried out for ZA to reflect the availability of generic ZA.ResultsPatients: 757 randomised (median age 68.7 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale score 0, 40%; 1, 52%; 2, 8%; prior radiotherapy, 45%); median prostate-specific antigen 143.78 ng/ml (interquartile range 50.8–353.9 ng/ml). Stratified log-rank analysis of CPFS was statistically non-significant for either agent (Sr-89,p = 0.11; ZA,p = 0.45). Cox regression analysis adjusted for stratification variables showed CPFS benefit for Sr-89 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.845, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.99;p = 0.036] and confirmed no effect of ZA (p = 0.46). ZA showed a significant SREFI effect (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93;p = 0.008). Neither agent affected OS (Sr-89,p = 0.74; ZA,p = 0.91), but both increased total cost (vs. no ZA and no Sr-89, respectively); decreased post-trial therapies partly offset costs [net difference: Sr-89 £1341; proprietary ZA (Zometa®, East Hanover, NJ, USA) £1319; generic ZA £251]. QoL was maintained in all trial arms; Sr-89 (0.08 additional QALYs) and ZA (0.03 additional QALYs) showed slight improvements. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Sr-89 was £16,590, with £42,047 per QALY for Zometa and £8005 per QALY for generic ZA.ConclusionStrontium-89 improved CPFS, but not OS. ZA did not improve CPFS or OS but significantly improved SREFI, mostly post progression, suggesting a role as post-chemotherapy maintenance therapy. QoL was well maintained in all treatment arms, with differing patterns of care resulting from the effects of Sr-89 on time to progression and ZA on SREFI and total SREs. The addition of Sr-89 resulted in additional cost and a small positive increase in QALYs, with an ICER below the £20,000 ceiling per QALY. The additional costs and small positive QALY changes in favour of ZA resulted in ICERs of £42,047 (Zometa) and £8005 for the generic alternative; thus, generic ZA represents a cost-effective option. Additional analyses on the basis of data from the Hospital Episode Statistics data set would allow corroborating the findings of this study. Further research into the use of ZA (and other bone-targeting therapies) with newer prostate cancer therapies would be desirable.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12808747.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Cognitive–behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony P Morrison ◽  
Melissa Pyle ◽  
Andrew Gumley ◽  
Matthias Schwannauer ◽  
Douglas Turkington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
End Of Treatment

BackgroundClozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome.DesignThe Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU).SettingSecondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK.ParticipantsPeople with CRS aged ≥ 16 years, with anInternational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms.InterventionsIndividual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs.ResultsParticipants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.32 to 1.55 points;p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (–2.40 points, 95% CI –4.79 to –0.02 points;p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI –£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46;p = 0.58).ConclusionsCognitive–behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Early, specialist vocational rehabilitation to facilitate return to work after traumatic brain injury: the FRESH feasibility RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (33) ◽  
pp. 1-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Radford ◽  
Chris Sutton ◽  
Tracey Sach ◽  
Jain Holmes ◽  
Caroline Watkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Work Ability ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Face To Face

BackgroundUp to 160,000 people incur traumatic brain injury (TBI) each year in the UK. TBI can have profound effects on many areas of human functioning, including participation in work. There is limited evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation (VR) after injury to promote early return to work (RTW) following TBI.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of a definitive, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, specialist VR plus usual care (UC) compared with UC alone on work retention 12 months post TBI.DesignA multicentre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT with a feasibility economic evaluation and an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. Randomisation was by remote computer-generated allocation.SettingThree NHS major trauma centres (MTCs) in England.ParticipantsAdults with TBI admitted for > 48 hours and working or studying prior to injury.InterventionsEarly specialist TBI VR delivered by occupational therapists (OTs) in the community using a case co-ordination model.Main outcome measuresSelf-reported RTW 12 months post randomisation, mood, functional ability, participation, work self-efficacy, quality of life and work ability. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates. Follow-up was by postal questionnaires in two centres and face to face in one centre. Those collecting data were blind to treatment allocation.ResultsOut of 102 target participants, 78 were recruited (39 randomised to each arm), representing 39% of those eligible and 5% of those screened. Approximately 2.2 patients were recruited per site per month. Of those, 56% had mild injuries, 18% had moderate injuries and 26% had severe injuries. A total of 32 out of 45 nominated carers were recruited. A total of 52 out of 78 (67%) TBI participants responded at 12 months (UC,n = 23; intervention,n = 29), completing 90% of the work questions; 21 out of 23 (91%) UC respondents and 20 out of 29 (69%) intervention participants returned to work at 12 months. Two participants disengaged from the intervention. Face-to-face follow-up was no more effective than postal follow-up. RTW was most strongly related to social participation and work self-efficacy. It is feasible to assess the cost-effectiveness of VR. Intervention was delivered as intended and valued by participants. Factors likely to affect a definitive trial include deploying experienced OTs, no clear TBI definition or TBI registers, and repatriation of more severe TBI from MTCs, affecting recruitment of those most likely to benefit/least likely to drop out.LimitationsTarget recruitment was not reached, but mechanisms to achieve this in future studies were identified. Retention was lower than expected, particularly in UC, potentially biasing estimates of the 12-month RTW rate.ConclusionsThis study met most feasibility objectives. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. When objectives were not met, strategies to ensure feasibility of a full trial were identified. Future work should test two-stage recruitment and include resources to recruit from ‘spokes’. A broader measure covering work ability, self-efficacy and participation may be a more sensitive outcome.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN38581822.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix – DySIS, LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and Niris Imaging System: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. i-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Wade ◽  
E Spackman ◽  
M Corbett ◽  
S Walker ◽  
K Light ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Imaging System ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Higher Sensitivity

BackgroundWomen in England (aged 25–64 years) are invited for cervical screening every 3–5 years to assess for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer. CIN is a term describing abnormal changes in the cells of the cervix, ranging from CIN1 to CIN3, which is precancerous. Colposcopy is used to visualise the cervix. Three adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the cervix have been included in this assessment: Dynamic Spectral Imaging System (DySIS), the LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and the Niris Imaging System.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix for patients referred for colposcopy through the NHS Cervical Screening Programme.Data sourcesSixteen electronic databases [Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), BIOSIS Previews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database; Inspec, Inside Conferences, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PASCAL, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Science Citation Index (SCI) – Conference Proceedings], and two clinical trial registries [ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials (CCT)] were searched to September–October 2011.Review methodsStudies comparing DySIS, LuViva or Niris with conventional colposcopy were sought; a narrative synthesis was undertaken. A decision-analytic model was developed, which measured outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were evaluated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services with a time horizon of 50 years.ResultsSix studies were included: two studies of DySIS, one study of LuViva and three studies of Niris. The DySIS studies were well reported and had a low risk of bias; they found higher sensitivity with DySIS (both the DySISmap alone and in combination with colposcopy) than colposcopy alone for identifying CIN2+ disease, although specificity was lower with DySIS. The studies of LuViva and Niris were poorly reported and had limitations, which indicated that their results were subject to a high risk of bias; the results of these studies cannot be considered reliable. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that both DySIS treatment options are less costly and more effective than colposcopy alone in the overall weighted population; these results were robust to the ranges tested in the sensitivity analysis. DySISmap alone was more costly and more effective in several of the referral groups but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was never higher than £1687 per QALY. DySIS plus colposcopy was less costly and more effective in all reasons for referral. Only indicative analyses were carried out on Niris and LuViva and no conclusions could be made on their cost-effectiveness.LimitationsThe assessment is limited by the available evidence on the new technologies, natural history of the disease area and current treatment patterns.ConclusionsDySIS, particularly in combination with colposcopy, has higher sensitivity than colposcopy alone. There is no reliable evidence on the clinical effectiveness of LuViva and Niris. DySIS plus colposcopy appears to be less costly and more effective than both the DySISmap alone and colposcopy alone; these results were robust to the sensitivity analyses undertaken. Given the lack of reliable evidence on LuViva and Niris, no conclusions on their potential cost-effectiveness can be drawn. There is some uncertainty about how generalisable these findings will be to the population of women referred for colposcopy in the future, owing to the introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) triage test and uptake of the HPV vaccine.Study registrationPROSPERO Record CRD42011001614.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (49) ◽  
pp. 1-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas RE Barnes ◽  
Verity C Leeson ◽  
Carol Paton ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Linda Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Insufficient Response ◽  
Economic Analyses

BackgroundWhen treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice.ObjectivesThe main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.DesignThe study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks.SettingsThe study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry.ParticipantsEligible participants were people aged 18–65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy.InterventionsInterventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the proportion of ‘responders’, using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.ResultsA total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term.LimitationsThe trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants.ConclusionsThe risk–benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride–clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride–clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Active Treatment for Idiopathic Adolescent Scoliosis (ACTIvATeS): a feasibility study

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (55) ◽  
pp. 1-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A Williams ◽  
Peter J Heine ◽  
Esther M Williamson ◽  
Francine Toye ◽  
Melina Dritsaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Idiopathic Scoliosis ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Study

BackgroundThe feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSEs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is uncertain.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre trial of SSE treatment for patients with AIS, in comparison with standard care, and to refine elements of the study design. The objectives were to (1) update a systematic review of controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SSE in AIS; (2) survey UK orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists to determine current practice, patient populations and equipoise; (3) randomise 50 adolescents to a feasibility trial of either usual care or SSE interventions across a range of sites; (4) develop, document and assess acceptability and adherence of interventions; (5) assess and describe training requirements of physiotherapists; and (6) gain user input in all relevant stages of treatment and protocol design.DesignMulticomponent feasibility study including UK clinician survey, systematic literature review and a randomised feasibility trial.SettingThe randomised feasibility study involved four secondary care NHS trusts providing specialist care for patients with AIS.ParticipantsThe randomised feasibility study recruited people aged 10–16 years with mild AIS (Cobb angle of < 50°).InterventionsThe randomised study allocated participants to standard practice of advice and education or a physiotherapy SSE programme supported by a home exercise plan. Our choice of intervention was informed by a systematic review of exercise interventions for AIS.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was feasibility of recruitment to the randomised study. Other elements were to inform choice of outcomes for a definitive trial and included curve severity, quality of life, requirement for surgery/brace, adverse events, psychological symptoms, costs and health utilities.ResultsA UK survey of orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists indicated a wide variation in current provision of exercise therapy through physiotherapy services. It also found that clinicians from at least 15 centres would be willing to have their patients involved in a full study. A systematic review update found five new studies that were generally of low quality but showed some promise of effectiveness of SSE. The randomised study recruited 58 patients from four NHS trusts over 11 months and exceeded the pre-specified target recruitment rate of 1.4 participants per centre per month, with acceptable 6-month follow-up (currently 73%). Adherence to treatment was variable (56% of participants completed treatment offered). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be highly acceptable. We learnt important lessons from patient and public involvement during the study in terms of study and intervention presentation, as well as practical elements such as scheduling of intervention sessions.ConclusionsA definitive RCT evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SSE for idiopathic scoliosis is warranted and feasible. Such a RCT is a priority for future work in the area. There is a sufficiently large patient base, combined with willingness to be randomised within specialist UK centres. Interventions developed during the feasibility study were acceptable to patients, families and physiotherapists and can be given within the affordability envelope of current levels of physiotherapy commissioning.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN90480705.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Study of the use of antidepressants for depression in dementia: the HTA-SADD trial – a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Banerjee ◽  
J Hellier ◽  
R Romeo ◽  
M Dewey ◽  
M Knapp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveDepression is common in dementia, causing considerable distress and other negative impacts. Treating it is a clinical priority, but the evidence base is sparse and equivocal. This trial aimed to determine clinical effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine in reducing depression 13 weeks post randomisation compared with placebo.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine with 13- and 39-week follow-up.SettingNine English old-age psychiatry services.ParticipantsA pragmatic trial.Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD), depression (4+ weeks) and Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score of 8+.Exclusions: clinically too critical (e.g. suicide risk); contraindication to medication; taking antidepressants; in another trial; and having no carer.Interventions(1) Sertraline; (2) mirtazapine; and (3) placebo, all with normal care. Target doses: 150 mg of sertraline or 45 mg of mirtazapine daily.Main outcome measuresOutcome: CSDD score.Randomisation: Allocated 1 : 1 : 1 through Trials Unit, independently of trial team. Stratified block randomisation by centre, with randomly varying block sizes; computer-generated randomisation.Blinding: Double blind: medication and placebo identical for each antidepressant. Referring clinicians, research workers, participants and pharmacies were blind. Statisticians blind until analyses completed.ResultsNumbers randomised: 326 participants randomised (111 placebo, 107 sertraline and 108 mirtazapine).Outcome: Differences in CSDD at 13 weeks from an adjusted linear-mixed model: mean difference (95% CI) placebo–sertraline 1.17 (−0.23 to 2.78;p = 0.102); placebo–mirtazapine 0.01 (−1.37 to 1.38;p = 0.991); and mirtazapine–sertraline 1.16 (−0.27 to 2.60;p = 0.112).Harms: Placebo group had fewer adverse reactions (29/111, 26%) than sertraline (46/107, 43%) or mirtazapine (44/108, 41%;p = 0.017); 39-week mortality equal, five deaths in each group.ConclusionsThis is a trial with negative findings but important clinical implications. The data suggest that the antidepressants tested, given with normal care, are not clinically effective (compared with placebo) for clinically significant depression in AD. This implies a need to change current practice of antidepressants being the first-line treatment of depression in AD. From the data generated we formulated the following recommendations for future work. (1) The secondary analyses presented here suggest that there would be value in carrying out a placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine in the management of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia. (2) A conclusion from this study is that it remains both ethical and essential for trials of new medication for depression in dementia to have a placebo arm. (3) Further research is required to evaluate the impact that treatments for depression in people with dementia can have on their carers not only in terms of any impacts on their quality of life, but also the time they spend care-giving. (4) There is a need for research into alternative biological and psychological therapies for depression in dementia. These could include evaluations of new classes of antidepressants (such as venlafaxine) or antidementia medication (e.g. cholinesterase inhibitors). (5) Research is needed to investigate the natural history of depression in dementia in the community when patients are not referred to secondary care services. (6) Further work is needed to investigate the cost modelling results in this rich data set, investigating carer burden and possible moderators to the treatment effects. (7) There is scope for reanalysis of the primary outcome in terms of carer and participant CSDD results.Trial registrationEudraCT Number – 2006–000105–38.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 7. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

scholarly journals Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy (including a review of TA140 and TA262): clinical effectiveness systematic review and economic model

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (39) ◽  
pp. 1-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Archer ◽  
Paul Tappenden ◽  
Shijie Ren ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Rebecca Harvey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Biological Treatments

BackgroundUlcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. UC can have a considerable impact on patients’ quality of life. The burden for the NHS is substantial.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions, to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of all interventions and comparators (including medical and surgical options), to estimate the expected net budget impact of each intervention, and to identify key research priorities.Data sourcesPeer-reviewed publications, European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers’ submissions. The following databases were searched from inception to December 2013 for clinical effectiveness searches and from inception to January 2014 for cost-effectiveness searches for published and unpublished research evidence: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and NHS Economic Evaluation Database; ISI Web of Science, including Science Citation Index, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Bioscience Information Service Previews. The US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website were also searched, as were research registers, conference proceedings and key journals.Review methodsA systematic review [including network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of named interventions. The health economic analysis included a review of published economic evaluations and the development of a de novo model.ResultsTen randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. The trials suggest that adult patients receiving infliximab (IFX) [Remicade®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (MSD)], adalimumab (ADA) (Humira®, AbbVie) or golimumab (GOL) (Simponi®, MSD) were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving placebo (PBO). Hospitalisation data were limited, but suggested more favourable outcomes for ADA- and IFX-treated patients. Data on the use of surgical intervention were sparse, with a potential benefit for intervention-treated patients. Data were available from one trial to support the use of IFX in paediatric patients. Safety issues identified included serious infections, malignancies and administration site reactions. Based on the NMA, in the induction phase, all biological treatments were associated with statistically significant beneficial effects relative to PBO, with the greatest effect associated with IFX. For patients in response following induction, all treatments except ADA and GOL 100 mg at 32–52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although these were not significant. The greatest effects at 8–32 and 32–52 weeks were associated with 100 mg of GOL and 5 mg/kg of IFX, respectively. For patients in remission following induction, all treatments except ADA at 8–32 weeks and GOL 50 mg at 32–52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although only the effect of ADA at 32–52 weeks was significant. The greatest effects were associated with GOL (at 8–32 weeks) and ADA (at 32–52 weeks). The economic analysis suggests that colectomy is expected to dominate drug therapies, but for some patients, colectomy may not be considered acceptable. In circumstances in which only drug options are considered, IFX and GOL are expected to be ruled out because of dominance, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ADA versus conventional treatment is approximately £50,300 per QALY gained.LimitationsThe health economic model is subject to several limitations: uncertainty associated with extrapolating trial data over a lifetime horizon, the model does not consider explicit sequential pathways of non-biological treatments, and evidence relating to complications of colectomy was identified through consideration of approaches used within previous models rather than a full systematic review.ConclusionsAdult patients receiving IFX, ADA or GOL were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving PBO. Further data are required to conclusively demonstrate the effect of interventions on hospitalisation and surgical outcomes. The economic analysis indicates that colectomy is expected to dominate medical treatments for moderate to severe UC.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document