scholarly journals Tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Corbett ◽  
Marta Soares ◽  
Gurleen Jhuti ◽  
Stephen Rice ◽  
Eldon Spackman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Model ◽  
Axial Spondyloarthritis ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Necrosis Factor ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

BackgroundTumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are typically used when the inflammatory rheumatologic diseases ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-AxSpA) have not responded adequately to conventional therapy. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends treatment with adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab in adults with active (severe) AS only if certain criteria are fulfilled but it does not recommend infliximab for AS. Anti-TNFs for patients with nr-AxSpA have not previously been appraised by NICE.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness within the NHS of adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab, within their licensed indications, for the treatment of severe active AS or severe nr-AxSpA (but with objective signs of inflammation).DesignSystematic review and economic model.Data sourcesFifteen databases were searched for relevant studies in July 2014.Review methodsClinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Results from other studies were summarised narratively. Only full economic evaluations that compared two or more options and considered both costs and consequences were included in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. The differences in the approaches and assumptions used across the studies, and also those in the manufacturer’s submissions, were examined in order to explain any discrepancies in the findings and to identify key areas of uncertainty. A de novo decision model was developed with a generalised framework for evidence synthesis that pooled change in disease activity (BASDAI and BASDAI 50) and simultaneously synthesised information on function (BASFI) to determine the long-term quality-adjusted life-year and cost burden of the disease in the economic model. The decision model was developed in accordance with the NICE reference case. The model has a lifetime horizon (60 years) and considers costs from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services. Health effects were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years.ResultsIn total, 28 eligible RCTs were identified and 26 were placebo controlled (mostly up to 12 weeks); 17 extended into open-label active treatment-only phases. Most RCTs were judged to have a low risk of bias overall. In both AS and nr-AxSpA populations, anti-TNFs produced clinically important benefits to patients in terms of improving function and reducing disease activity; for AS, the relative risks for ASAS 40 ranged from 2.53 to 3.42. The efficacy estimates were consistently slightly smaller for nr-AxSpA than for AS. Statistical (and clinical) heterogeneity was more apparent in the nr-AxSpA analyses than in the AS analyses; both the reliability of the nr-AxSpA meta-analysis results and their true relevance to patients seen in clinical practice are questionable. In AS, anti-TNFs are approximately equally effective. Effectiveness appears to be maintained over time, with around 50% of patients still responding at 2 years. Evidence for an effect of anti-TNFs delaying disease progression was limited; results from ongoing long-term studies should help to clarify this issue. Sequential treatment with anti-TNFs can be worthwhile but the drug survival response rates and benefits are reduced with second and third anti-TNFs. The de novo model, which addressed many of the issues of earlier evaluations, generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from £19,240 to £66,529 depending on anti-TNF and modelling assumptions.ConclusionsIn both AS and nr-AxSpA populations anti-TNFs are clinically effective, although more so in AS than in nr-AxSpA. Anti-TNFs may be an effective use of NHS resources depending on which assumptions are considered appropriate.Future work recommendationsRandomised trials are needed to identify the nr-AxSpA population who will benefit the most from anti-TNFs.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010182.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (29) ◽  
pp. 1-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Davis ◽  
Emma Simpson ◽  
Jean Hamilton ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Andrew Rawdin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. Data sources For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. Review methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0–33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. Limitations The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. Conclusions Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate for treating multiple sclerosis: systematic review and economic evaluation

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (52) ◽  
pp. 1-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
GJ Melendez-Torres ◽  
Peter Auguste ◽  
Xavier Armoiry ◽  
Hendramoorthy Maheswaran ◽  
Rachel Court ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Mean

Background At the time of publication of the most recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance [technology appraisal (TA) 32] in 2002 on beta-interferon (IFN-β) and glatiramer acetate (GA) for multiple sclerosis, there was insufficient evidence of their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Objectives To undertake (1) systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IFN-β and GA in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) and clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) and each other, investigating annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to disability progression confirmed at 3 months and 6 months and (2) cost-effectiveness assessments of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for CIS and RRMS compared with BSC and each other. Review methods Searches were undertaken in January and February 2016 in databases including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and the Science Citation Index. We limited some database searches to specific start dates based on previous, relevant systematic reviews. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts with recourse to a third when needed. The Cochrane tool and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Philips checklists were used for appraisal. Narrative synthesis and, when possible, random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed. Cost-effectiveness analysis used published literature, findings from the Department of Health’s risk-sharing scheme (RSS) and expert opinion. A de novo economic model was built for CIS. The base case used updated RSS data, a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, a 50-year time horizon, 2014/15 prices and a discount rate of 3.5%. Outcomes are reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We undertook probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results In total, 6420 publications were identified, of which 63 relating to 35 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. In total, 86% had a high risk of bias. There was very little difference between drugs in reducing moderate or severe relapse rates in RRMS. All were beneficial compared with BSC, giving a pooled rate ratio of 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.76] for ARR and a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.87) for time to disability progression confirmed at 3 months. NMA suggested that 20 mg of GA given subcutaneously had the highest probability of being the best at reducing ARR. Three separate cost-effectiveness searches identified > 2500 publications, with 26 included studies informing the narrative synthesis and model inputs. In the base case using a modified RSS the mean incremental cost was £31,900 for pooled DMTs compared with BSC and the mean incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.943, giving an ICER of £33,800 per QALY gained for people with RRMS. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis the ICER was £34,000 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analysis, using the assessment group inputs gave an ICER of £12,800 per QALY gained for pooled DMTs compared with BSC. Pegylated IFN-β-1 (125 µg) was the most cost-effective option of the individual DMTs compared with BSC (ICER £7000 per QALY gained); GA (20 mg) was the most cost-effective treatment for CIS (ICER £16,500 per QALY gained). Limitations Although we built a de novo model for CIS that incorporated evidence from our systematic review of clinical effectiveness, our findings relied on a population diagnosed with CIS before implementation of the revised 2010 McDonald criteria. Conclusions DMTs were clinically effective for RRMS and CIS but cost-effective only for CIS. Both RCT evidence and RSS data are at high risk of bias. Research priorities include comparative studies with longer follow-up and systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016043278. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Drug-Coated Balloon for De Novo Lesions in Small-Vessel Coronary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. S22
Author(s):  
Aminah Abdul Razzack ◽  
Suveenkrishna Pothuru ◽  
Syed Adeel Hassan ◽  
Sri Mandava ◽  
Darío Missael Rocha Castellanos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Disease ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Vessel ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

scholarly journals De Novo Donor Specific Antibody and Long-Term Outcome After Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Beyzaei ◽  
Bita Geramizadeh ◽  
Zahra Bagheri ◽  
Sara Karimzadeh ◽  
Alireza Shojazadeh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Liver Transplant ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Graft Loss ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe impact of de novo anti-HLA donor-specific alloantibodies (DSA) which develop after long-term liver transplantation (LT) remains controversial and unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of de novo DSAs on the outcome in LT.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies published until Dec 31, 2019, that reported de novo DSA outcome data (≥1 year of follow-up) after liver transplant. A literature search in the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection databases was performed.ResultsOf 5,325 studies identified, 15 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The studies which reported 2016 liver transplant recipients with de novo DSAs showed an increased complication risk, i.e. graft loss and chronic rejection (OR 3.61; 95% CI 1.94–6.71, P < 0.001; I2 58.19%), and allograft rejection alone (OR 6.43; 95% CI: 3.17–13.04; P < 0.001; I2 49.77%); they were compared to patients without de novo DSAs. The association between de novo DSAs and overall outcome failure was consistent across all subgroups and sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsOur study suggested that de novo DSAs had a significant deleterious impact on the liver transplant risk of rejection. The routine detection of de novo DSAs may be beneficial as noninvasive biomarker-guided risk stratification.

scholarly journals Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi – a systematic review and economic evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (46) ◽  
pp. 1-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Stevenson ◽  
Abdullah Pandor ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Rachid Rafia ◽  
Lesley Uttley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Standard Practice ◽  
Bacteria And Fungi

BackgroundSepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®(Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTestTM(Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry).Data sourcesThirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles.Review methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.ResultsFor the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based.LimitationsRobust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable.ConclusionsThe clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016724.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document