Fiona Paton

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

BACKGROUND Allergic asthma is a long-term disorder of the airways resulting from overexpression of immunoglobulin E (IgE) in response to environmental allergens. Patients with poorly controlled asthma are at high risk of exacerbations requiring additional treatment, including hospitalisations. Severe exacerbations are potentially life threatening. Guidelines identify five treatment steps for both adults and children. Omalizumab (Xolair(®)) is a recombinant DNA-derived humanised monoclonal antibody indicated as an add-on therapy in patients aged ≥ 6 years with severe persistent allergic asthma uncontrolled at treatment step 4 or 5. OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, as an add-on therapy to standard care, within its licensed indication, compared with standard therapy alone for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years and children aged 6-11 years. DATA SOURCES Eleven electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and additional sources including regulatory agency reports were searched from inception to October 2011. Additional data sources include: the manufacturers submission (MS); two previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) submissions; and existing reviews on the safety of omalizumab and oral corticosteroids (OCSs). REVIEW METHODS Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence for omalizumab were performed. The primary outcome was number of clinically significant (CS) exacerbations. Other outcomes included asthma symptoms, unscheduled health-care use, asthma-related mortality, OCS use and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Because of methodological and clinical heterogeneity between trials, a narrative synthesis was applied. Pragmatic reviews with best evidence syntheses were used to assess adverse events of omalizumab and OCSs. The cost-effectiveness of omalizumab was assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS in the two separate populations: adults and adolescents, and children, using a cohort Markov model. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results are presented for additional subgroup populations: (1) hospitalised for asthma in the previous year, (2) adults and adolescents on maintenance OCSs and (3) three or more exacerbations in the previous year. RESULTS Eleven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 observational studies were identified, including four RCTs/subgroups in the adult licensed population and one subgroup in children. A minority of patients were on maintenance OCSs. No evidence comparing omalizumab with OCSs was identified. Omalizumab significantly reduced the incidence of CS exacerbations in both adults and children [adults: INvestigatioN of Omalizumab in seVere Asthma Trial (INNOVATE): rate ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; children IA-05 EUP (the a priori subgroup of patients who met the European Medicines Agency license criteria) 0.66; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00]. Significant benefits were observed for a range of other outcomes in adults. Subgroup evidence showed benefits in adults on maintenance OCSs. Evidence for an OCS-sparing effect of omalizumab was limited but consistent. Omalizumab is available as 75 mg and 150 mg prefilled syringes at prices of £128.07 and £256.15 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adults and adolescents is £83,822 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, whereas the ICER for children is £78,009 per QALY gained. The results are similar for the subgroup population of ≥ 3 exacerbations in the previous year, whereas the ICER for the other subgroup populations are lower; £46,431 for the hospitalisation subgroup in adults and adolescents, £44,142 for the hospitalisation subgroup in children and £50,181 for the maintenance OCS subgroup. CONCLUSION Omalizumab reduces the incidence of CS exacerbations in adults and children, with benefits on other outcomes in adults. Limited, underpowered subgroup evidence exists that omalizumab reduces exacerbations and OCS requirements in adults on OCSs. Evidence in children is weaker and more uncertain. The ICERs are above conventional NHS thresholds of cost-effectiveness. The key drivers of cost-effectiveness are asthma-related mortality risk and, to a lesser extent, HRQoL improvement and OCS-related adverse effects. An adequately powered double-blind RCT in both adults and children on maintenance OCSs and an individual patient data meta-analysis of existing trials should be considered. A registry of all patients on omalizumab should be established. STUDY REGISTRATION The study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001625. FUNDING This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme on behalf of NICE as project number HTA 10/128/01.

Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis

Objectives To assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK. Design Rapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion. Primary and secondary outcome measures We assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process. Results 17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5–3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting. Conclusions There is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.

An overview and methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of enhanced recovery programmes in colorectal surgery

Objectives To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect. Design Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process. Results 10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5 days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software. Conclusions Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.

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.

Topotecan for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcomes measured were overall survival, progression-free survival, response rates, adverse effects of treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The manufacturer stated that topotecan plus cisplatin is the only combination regimen to date to have demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage compared to cisplatin monotherapy in the licensed population. The clinical evidence came from three clinical trials comparing topotecan plus cisplatin with cisplatin monotherapy (GOG-0179), topotecan plus cisplatin with paclitaxel plus cisplatin (GOG-0169), and four cisplatin-based combination therapies: topotecan plus cisplatin, paclitaxel plus cisplatin, gemcitabine plus cisplatin, and vinorelbine plus cisplatin (GOG-0204). Results from GOG-0179 showed greater median overall survival with topotecan plus cisplatin than with cisplatin monotherapy: 9.4 months versus 6.5 months. Similar results were also reported for median progression-free survival. Response rates also showed an advantage with topotecan plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin monotherapy. The response rates in patients receiving cisplatin monotherapy were very low, but the potential reasons for this were not discussed in the manufacturers submission. Patients receiving topotecan plus cisplatin experienced a greater number of adverse events and the ERG was concerned with some of the assumptions related to HRQoL. In the base-case direct comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of topotecan plus cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy was 17,974 pounds per QALY in the main licensed population, 10,928 pounds per QALY in the cisplatin-naive population (including stage IVB patients) and 32,463 pounds per QALY in sustained cisplatin-free interval patients. In response to the point for clarification raised by the ERG, the manufacturer submitted a revised indirect comparison incorporating HRQoL and a longer time horizon. Where the hazard ratio derived from GOG-0169 was employed, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was dominated by topotecan plus cisplatin, but, where the hazard ratio from GOG-0204 was adopted, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was found to have an ICER of 13,260 pounds per QALY versus topotecan plus cisplatin. At present there is a paucity of evidence available on the clinical effects of topotecan plus cisplatin and the effects of palliative treatment in general for women with advanced and recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Further trials, or the implementation of registries, are required to establish the efficacy and safety of topotecan plus cisplatin. The guidance issued by NICE on 28 October 2009 as a result of the STA states that topotecan in combination with cisplatin is recommended as a treatment option for women with recurrent or stage IVB cervical cancer, only if they have not previously received cisplatin. Women who have previously received cisplatin and are currently being treated with topotecan in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of cervical cancer should have the option to continue therapy until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop.

Use of Non-randomised Evidence Alongside Randomised Trials in a Systematic Review of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Strengths and Limitations

OBJECTIVE To assess whether limitations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be addressed by evidence from non-randomised studies. DESIGN Analysis of data from a systematic review. METHODS We conducted a review of EVAR versus open repair or non-surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. In addition to RCTs, we included pre-specified registries of EVAR and open repair. RESULTS The six included RCTs randomised patients in 2003 and earlier. Of the three registries included, one contributed data on a large (>8000) sample of patients treated with newer generation EVAR devices and followed up for up to 8 years. However, treatment dates of these patients overlapped with those of the RCTs. The other registries were of limited usefulness. A large (>45,000) controlled observational study published while the review was in progress broadly supported the findings of RCTs comparing EVAR with open surgery. A comparison of outcomes across all studies did not support the hypothesis that the findings of the RCTs are no longer representative of clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS Both randomised and non-randomised sources of evidence have strengths and weaknesses for assessing the effectiveness of EVAR. Further research should explore the optimum use of registry data, including patient-level analyses.

Systematic review of patient preference and adherence to the correct use of graduated compression stockings to prevent deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients

AIM The aim of this study was to explore patient preference and adherence to thigh and knee length graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients. BACKGROUND Hospitalised patients are at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis. Mechanical methods of prophylaxis include compression stockings, available as knee or thigh length. Patient adherence to correct stocking use is of critical importance to their effectiveness. DESIGN Systematic review of quantitative evidence. DATA SOURCES Eleven databases were searched from inception to 2013 for systematic reviews of compression stockings. Reviews were screened for relevant primary studies and update searches of eight electronic sources were undertaken (2010-2014). REVIEW METHODS Randomised controlled trials and observational studies of surgical patients using compression stockings were quality assessed and data were extracted on patient adherence and preference. A narrative summary is presented. RESULTS Nine randomised controlled trials and seven observational studies were included in the systematic review. There was substantial variation between studies in terms of patient characteristics, interventions and methods of outcome assessment. CONCLUSION Patient adherence was generally higher with knee length than thigh length stockings. However, the studies reflect patient adherence in a hospital setting only, where patients are observed by healthcare professionals; it is likely that adherence reduces once patients have been discharged from hospital. Patients preferred knee length stockings over thigh length stockings. In many clinical settings, any difference in efficacy between thigh length and knee length stockings may be rendered irrelevant by patient preference for and likely better adherence to knee length stockings.

Thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients; a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness of thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis using direct methods and network meta-analysis. Methods Previous systematic reviews and electronic databases were searched to February 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of thigh length or knee length antiembolism stockings in surgical patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. Analysis of the DVT data was performed using ORs along with 95% CIs. The I2 statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity. Results 23 RCTs were included; there was substantial variation between the trials and many were poorly reported with an unclear risk of bias. Five RCTs directly comparing thigh length versus knee length stockings were pooled and the summary estimate of effect favouring thigh length stockings was not statistically significant (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.73). 13 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis; thigh length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis were more effective than knee length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis, but again results were not statistically significant (OR 1.76, 95% credible intervals 0.82 to 3.53). Conclusions Thigh length stockings may be more effective than knee length stockings, but results did not reach statistical significance and the evidence base is weak. Further research to confirm this finding is unlikely to be worthwhile. While thigh length stockings appear to have superior efficacy, practical issues such as patient acceptability may prevent their wide use in clinical practice. Systematic review registration number CRD42014007202.