Eleftherios Sideris

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

BACKGROUND Tumour 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. OBJECTIVE To 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). DESIGN Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES Fifteen databases were searched for relevant studies in July 2014. REVIEW METHODS Clinical 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 manufacturers 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. RESULTS In 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. CONCLUSIONS In 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 RECOMMENDATIONS Randomised trials are needed to identify the nr-AxSpA population who will benefit the most from anti-TNFs. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010182. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients: a systematic review and economic model with a value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND Deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) can occur in surgical patients. Routine prophylaxis can be pharmacological and/or mechanical [e.g. graduated compression stockings (GCSs)]. GCSs are available in knee length or thigh length. OBJECTIVE To establish the expected value of undertaking additional research addressing the relative effectiveness of thigh-length GCSs versus knee-length GCSs, in addition to pharmacoprophylaxis, for prevention of DVT in surgical patients. DESIGN Systematic review and economic model, including value of information (VOI) analysis. REVIEW METHODS Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing thigh- or knee-length GCSs in surgical patients were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. DVT complications and GCSs adverse events were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. To draw on a wider evidence base, a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was undertaken for the outcome DVT. A review of trials and observational studies of patient adherence was also conducted. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of thigh- and knee-length GCSs and the VOI. RESULTS Twenty-three RCTs were included in the review of effectiveness. There was substantial variation between trials in terms of the patient characteristics, interventions and methods of outcome assessment. Five trials comparing knee-length with thigh-length GCSs with or without pharmacoprophylaxis were pooled; the summary estimate of effect indicated a non-significant trend favouring thigh-length GCSs [odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 2.73]. Thirteen trials were included in the NMA. In the base-case analysis, thigh-length GCSs with pharmacoprophylaxis were more effective than knee-length GCSs with pharmacoprophylaxis (knee vs. thigh OR 1.76, 95% credible interval 0.82 to 3.53). Overall, thigh-length stockings with pharmacoprophylaxis was the most effective treatment, with a 0.73 probability of being the most effective treatment in a new trial of all the treatments. Patient adherence was generally higher with knee-length GCSs, and patients preferred knee-length GCSs. Thigh-length GCSs were found to be cost-effective in all but the subgroup with the lowest baseline risk, although the absolute differences in costs and effects were relatively small. The expected value of perfect information ranged from £0.2M to £178.0M depending on the scenario and subgroup. The relative effect parameters had the highest expected value of partial perfect information and ranged from £2.0M to £39.4M. The value of further research was most evident in the high-risk subgroups. LIMITATIONS There was substantial variation across the included trials in terms of patient and intervention characteristics. Many of the included trials were old and poorly reported, which reduces the reliability of the results of the review. CONCLUSIONS Given that the results from both the standard meta-analysis and the NMA lacked precision (CIs were wide) owing to the heterogeneous evidence base, a new definitive trial in high-risk patients may be warranted. However, the efficiency of any further research (i.e. whether this represents value for money) is dependent on several factors, including the acquisition price of GCSs, expected compliance with thigh-length GCSs wear, and whether or not uncertainty can be resolved around possible effect modifiers, as well as the feasibility and actual cost of undertaking the proposed research. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014007202. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee

Background There is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value. Methods Data from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16). Results When all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20–30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D. Conclusions Using the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Apremilast for Treating Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Critique of the Evidence

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of apremilast was invited to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for whom disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been inadequately effective, not tolerated or contraindicated. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the ERG review of the company’s submission, the ERG report and submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee’s subsequent guidance (December 2015). In the company’s initial submission, the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,683 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the sequence including apremilast (positioned before tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α inhibitors) versus a comparator sequence without apremilast. However, the ERG considered that the base-case sequence proposed by the company represented a limited set of potentially relevant treatment sequences and positions for apremilast. The company’s base-case results were therefore not a sufficient basis to inform the most efficient use and position of apremilast. The exploratory ERG analyses indicated that apremilast is more effective (i.e. produces higher health gains) when positioned after TNF-α inhibitor therapies. Furthermore, assumptions made regarding a potential beneficial effect of apremilast on long-term Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression, which cannot be substantiated, have a very significant impact on results. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), when taking into account their preferred assumptions for HAQ progression for patients on treatment with apremilast, placebo response and monitoring costs for apremilast, concluded that the addition of apremilast resulted in cost savings but also a QALY loss. These cost savings were not high enough to compensate for the clinical effectiveness that would be lost. The AC thus decided that apremilast alone or in combination with DMARD therapy is not recommended for treating adults with active PsA that has not responded to prior DMARD therapy, or where such therapy is not tolerated.