Howard Thom

Cost-effectiveness of initial stress cardiovascular MR, stress SPECT or stress echocardiography as a gate-keeper test, compared with upfront invasive coronary angiography in the investigation and management of patients with stable chest pain: Mid-term outcomes from the CECaT randomised controlled trial

Objectives To compare outcomes and cost-effectiveness of various initial imaging strategies in the management of stable chest pain in a long-term prospective randomised trial. Setting Regional cardiothoracic referral centre in the east of England. Participants 898 patients (69% man) entered the study with 869 alive at 2 years of follow-up. Patients were included if they presented for assessment of stable chest pain with a positive exercise test and no prior history of ischaemic heart disease. Exclusion criteria were recent infarction, unstable symptoms or any contraindication to stress MRI. Primary outcome measures The primary outcomes of this follow-up study were survival up to a minimum of 2 years post-treatment, quality-adjusted survival and cost-utility of each strategy. Results 898 patients were randomised. Compared with angiography, mortality was marginally higher in the groups randomised to cardiac MR (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.2), but similar in the single photon emission CT-methoxyisobutylisonitrile (SPECT-MIBI; HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 2.9) and ECHO groups (HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 4.0). Although SPECT-MIBI was marginally superior to other non-invasive tests there were no other significant differences between the groups in mortality, quality-adjusted survival or costs. Conclusions Non-invasive cardiac imaging can be used safely as the initial diagnostic test to diagnose coronary artery disease without adverse effects on patient outcomes or increased costs, relative to angiography. These results should be interpreted in the context of recent advances in imaging technology. Trial registration ISRCTN 47108462, UKCRN 3696.

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements. OBJECTIVE To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. DESIGN Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials. SETTING Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention). PARTICIPANTS Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE). INTERVENTIONS NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014. REVIEW METHODS Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models. RESULTS Apixaban (Eliquis®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana®, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication. CONCLUSIONS NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE. LIMITATIONS These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs. FUTURE WORK Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis

Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation. Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin. Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

Value of Information: We've Got Speed, What More Do We Need?

Expected value of sample information (EVSI) 1 measures the average net-benefit gain from conducting new research and can be used to inform decisions on which new studies to fund and how best to design those studies. This helps avoid wasting resources researching treatments that were never likely to be cost-effective or conversely by adopting treatments that, if more evidence were collected, may be shown not to be cost-effective. However, the calculations in the general case rely on nested simulations, which can be very computationally demanding and even infeasible to compute in some cases. Since EVSI needs to be repeatedly computed over the potential study design space, this represents a clear barrier to the uptake of EVSI methods in practice. In some special situations, algebraic solutions are available that avoid the inner simulation step. 2–4 More generally, meta-modeling, which attempts to build a model to approximate the relationship between the model inputs (on which a new study can provide information) and model outputs (net benefit), is a promising approach that can lead to substantial computational savings. 5,6 In this issue, 2 novel meta-modeling methods are proposed for the calculation of EVSI, 7,8 both of which require only

Clear or almost clear skin improves the quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response is currently considered the gold standard for assessing treatment efficacy in moderate‐to‐severe psoriatic patients. PASI 90 response denotes better clinical improvement compared to PASI 75. Very few studies have assessed if a greater PASI clinical response is associated with greater improvements in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed to assess the association between PASI response and DLQI. The study was conducted to assess whether greater improvement in PASI scores from PASI 75–89 to PASI 90 is associated with greater Quality of life (QoL) improvements, specifically DLQI scores. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library to identify studies evaluating biologic interventions in adult moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis patients reporting PASI response and their corresponding DLQI change from baseline score. The quality of evidence was assessed through Jadad score for randomized controlled trials and Downs and Blacks checklist for observational studies. Meta‐analysis estimated change from baseline in DLQI for PASI 75–89 responders to be 78% (95% credible intervals [CrI]: 75–82%) and for PASI 90 responders to be 90% (95% CrI: 88–93%). This implies 12% greater improvement in DLQI score for PASI 90 responders compared with PASI 75–89 responders. In addition, the meta‐analysis also showed a statistically significant difference in DLQI score of 0/1 between PASI 75‐89 and PASI 90 responders (45% [95% Crl]; 41.0–50.0% and 73% [95% Crl]; 70.0–76.0%), respectively, Bayesian P < 0.0001). In conclusion, substantial improvement in clinical efficacy is associated with improved QoL in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis suggesting that PASI 90 responders (clear or almost clear skin) could achieve a superior QoL compared to PASI 75–89 responders.

Comparative efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Abstract Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of existing treatments for ABSSSI focusing on the novel lipoglycopeptide oritavancin. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and select conferences were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating antimicrobial agents for the treatment of ABSSSI. NMA was used to estimate the odds ratios of the Test-Of-Cure (TOC) and Early Clinical Response (ECR) outcomes for treatments relative to vancomycin in the ITT populations. Sub-group analyses in MRSA and MSSA populations were conducted for TOC; sensitivity analyses investigated the use of the clinically evaluable (CE) populations and the restriction to trials following the recent FDA guidelines for clinical trials. Results: The systematic review identified 52 trials. The most commonly investigated treatments were vancomycin and linezolid; most trials reported TOC, but not ECR. The posterior mean and 95% credible intervals for odds ratios of TOC for antimicrobial agents relative to vancomycin were: linezolid (1.55; 0.91–2.57), daptomycin (2.18; 0.90–5.42), and oritavancin 1200 mg (1.06; 0.80–1.43). The odds ratio of ECR for oritavancin 1200 mg was 1.02 (0.23–4.33). In the MRSA sub-group the odds ratios relative to vancomycin for TOC were: linezolid (1.55; 0.96–2.46), daptomycin (0.74; 0.13–3.66), and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.94; 0.44–2.02). In the MSSA sub-group they were linezolid (1.36; 0.15–13.34) and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.82; 0.08–7.83). These results were robust to the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: This NMA provides a unified framework for the comparison of all available antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of ABSSSI and is the first to assess the ECR end-point. The results suggest equivalence of clinical efficacy between vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and novel antimicrobial agents including oritavancin for the treatment of ABSSSI at TOC. The wide uncertainty margins indicate the heterogeneity of the available evidence and the need for further research.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. OBJECTIVES To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. DESIGN Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING Primary care. PARTICIPANTS Adults. INTERVENTION Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. REVIEW METHODS Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. RESULTS Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. LIMITATIONS Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. FUTURE WORK Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Network meta-analysis combining individual patient and aggregate data from a mixture of study designs with an application to pulmonary arterial hypertension

BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is a methodology for indirectly comparing, and strengthening direct comparisons of two or more treatments for the management of disease by combining evidence from multiple studies. It is sometimes not possible to perform treatment comparisons as evidence networks restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be disconnected. We propose a Bayesian NMA model that allows to include single-arm, before-and-after, observational studies to complete these disconnected networks. We illustrate the method with an indirect comparison of treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).MethodsOur method uses a random effects model for placebo improvements to include single-arm observational studies into a general NMA. Building on recent research for binary outcomes, we develop a covariate-adjusted continuous-outcome NMA model that combines individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate data from two-arm RCTs with the single-arm observational studies. We apply this model to a complex comparison of therapies for PAH combining IPD from a phase-III RCT of imatinib as add-on therapy for PAH and aggregate data from RCTs and single-arm observational studies, both identified by a systematic review.ResultsThrough the inclusion of observational studies, our method allowed the comparison of imatinib as add-on therapy for PAH with other treatments. This comparison had not been previously possible due to the limited RCT evidence available. However, the credible intervals of our posterior estimates were wide so the overall results were inconclusive. The comparison should be treated as exploratory and should not be used to guide clinical practice.ConclusionsOur method for the inclusion of single-arm observational studies allows the performance of indirect comparisons that had previously not been possible due to incomplete networks composed solely of available RCTs. We also built on many recent innovations to enable researchers to use both aggregate data and IPD. This method could be used in similar situations where treatment comparisons have not been possible due to restrictions to RCT evidence and where a mixture of aggregate data and IPD are available.

Indirect comparisons of ranibizumab and dexamethasone in macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

BackgroundTwo treatments, ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant, for visual impairment due to macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) have recently been studied in clinical trials. There have been no head to head comparisons of the two treatments, and improvement measured as gain in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was reported using different outcomes thresholds between trials. To overcome these limitations, and inform an economic model, we developed a combination of a multinomial model and an indirect Bayesian comparison model for multinomial outcomes.MethodsOutcomes of change from baseline in BCVA for dexamethasone compatible with those available for ranibizumab, reported by 4 randomised controlled trials, were estimated by fitting a multinomial distribution model to the probability of a patient achieving outcomes in a range of changes from baseline in BCVA (numbers of letters) at month 1. A Bayesian indirect comparison multinomial model was then developed to compare treatments in the Branch RVO (BRVO) and Central RVO (CRVO) populations.ResultsThe multinomial model had excellent fit to the observed results. With the Bayesian indirect comparison, the probabilities of achieving ≥20 letters, with 95% credible intervals, at month 1 in patients with BRVO were 0.191 (0.130, 0.261) with ranibizumab and 0.093 (0.027, 0.213) with dexamethasone. In patients with CRVO, probabilities were 0.133 (0.082, 0.195) (ranibizumab) and 0.063 (0.016, 0.153) (dexamethasone). Probabilities of a gain in ≥10 letters in BRVO patients were 0.500 (0.365, 0.650) v 0.459 (0.248, 0.724) and in CRVO patients 0.459 (0.332, 0.602) v 0.498 (0.263, 0.791) for ranibizumab and dexamethasone treatments respectively. The comparisons also favoured ranibizumab at month 6 although changes to therapies after month 3 may have introduced bias.ConclusionThe newly developed combination of multinomial and indirect Bayesian comparison models indicated a trend for ranibizumab association with a greater percentage of ME patients achieving visual gains than dexamethasone at months 1 and 6 in a common clinical context, although results were not classically significant. The method was a useful tool for comparisons of probability distributions between clinical trials that reported events on different categorical scales and estimates can be used to inform economic models.

Choice of implant combinations in total hip replacement: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the survival of different implant combinations for primary total hip replacement (THR). Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the EU Clinical Trials Register. Review methods Published randomised controlled trials comparing different implant combinations. Implant combinations were defined by bearing surface materials (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, or metal-on-metal), head size (large ≥36 mm or small <36 mm), and fixation technique (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid). Our reference implant combination was metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, and cemented. The primary outcome was revision surgery at 0-2 years and 2-10 years after primary THR. The secondary outcome was the Harris hip score reported by clinicians. Results 77 studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies (3177 hips) in the network meta-analysis for revision. There was no evidence that the risk of revision surgery was reduced by other implant combinations compared with the reference implant combination. Although estimates are imprecise, metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants (hazard ratio 4.4, 95% credible interval 1.6 to 16.6) and resurfacing (12.1, 2.1 to 120.3) increase the risk of revision at 0-2 years after primary THR compared with the reference implant combination. Similar results were observed for the 2-10 years period. 31 studies (2888 patients) were included in the analysis of Harris hip score. No implant combination had a better score than the reference implant combination. Conclusions Newer implant combinations were not found to be better than the reference implant combination (metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, cemented) in terms of risk of revision surgery or Harris hip score. Metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants and resurfacing increased the risk of revision surgery compared with the reference implant combination. The results were consistent with observational evidence and were replicated in sensitivity analysis but were limited by poor reporting across studies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015019435.