Pawana Sharma

Early referral strategies for management of people with markers of renal disease: a systematic review of the evidence of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition and has been described as the gradual loss of kidney function over time. Early in the disease process, people with CKD often experience no symptoms. For a long time, CKD has been an underdiagnosed condition. Even in the absence of symptoms, CKD appears to add significantly to the burden of cardiovascular disease and death and, for an important minority, can progress to kidney failure. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early referral strategies for management of people with markers of renal disease. DATA SOURCES Electronic searches of 12 major databases (such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, etc.) were conducted for the time period of 1990 to April 2008 to identify studies comparing early referral to other care options for people with CKD. Additional searching was performed in the NHS Economic Evaluation Database to support the cost-effectiveness literature review. REVIEW METHODS Two authors reviewed all titles, abstracts and full papers to select relevant literature. A Markov model was constructed to represent the natural history of CKD. The model allowed cohorts to be tracked according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) status and the presence of other complications known to influence CKD progression and the incidence of cardiovascular events. RESULTS From 36 relevant natural history studies, CKD was found to be, despite marked heterogeneity between studies, a marker of increased risk of mortality, renal progression and end-stage renal disease. Mortality was generally high and increased with stage of CKD. After adjustment for comorbidities, the relative risk of mortality among those with CKD identified from the general population increased with stage. For clinical populations, the relative risk was higher. All three outcomes increased as eGFR fell. Only seven studies, and no randomised controlled trials, were identified as relevant to assessing the clinical effectiveness of early referral strategies for CKD. In the five retrospective studies constructed from cohorts starting on renal replacement therapy (RRT), mortality was reduced in the early referral group (more than 12 months prior to RRT) even as late as 5 years after initiation of RRT. Only two studies included predialysis participants. One study, in people screened for diabetic nephropathy, reported a reduction in the decline in renal function associated with early referral to nephrology specialists (eGFR decline 3.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) when compared with a similar group that had no access to nephrology services until dialysis was required (eGFR decline 12.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). The second study, among a group of veterans with two creatinine levels of at least 140 mg/dl, reported that a composite end point of death or progression was lower in the group receiving nephrology follow-up than in those receiving only primary care follow-up. The greatest effect was observed in those with stage 3 or worse disease after adjustment for comorbidities, age, race, smoking and proteinuria {stage 3: hazard ratio (HR) 0.8 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.9)]; stage 4: HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.89)}. In the base-case analysis, all early referral strategies produced more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than referral upon transit to stage 5 CKD (eGFR 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Referral for everyone with an eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (stage 3a CKD) generated the most QALYs and, compared with referral for stage 4 CKD (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately 3806 pounds per QALY. LIMITATIONS Because of a lack of data on the natural history of CKD in individuals without diabetes, and a lack of evidence on the costs and effects of early referral, the Markov model relied on many assumptions. The findings were particularly sensitive to changes in eGFR decline rates and the relative effect of early referral on CKD progression and cardiovascular events; the latter parameter being derived from a single non-randomised study. CONCLUSIONS Despite substantial focus on the early identification and proactive management of CKD in the last few years, we have identified significant evidence gaps about how best to manage people with CKD. There was some evidence to suggest that the care of people with CKD could be improved and, because these people are at risk from both renal and cardiovascular outcomes, strategies to improve the management of people with CKD have the potential to offer an efficient use of health service resources. Given the number of people now being recognised as having markers of kidney impairment, there is an urgent need for further research to support service change.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND Complete surgical removal of the prostate, radical prostatectomy, is the most frequently used treatment option for men with localised prostate cancer. The use of laparoscopic (keyhole) and robot-assisted surgery has improved operative safety but the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these options remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robotic radical prostatectomy compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the treatment of localised prostate cancer within the UK NHS. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1995 until October 2010 for primary studies. Conference abstracts from meetings of the European, American and British Urological Associations were also searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources and the manufacturer of the robotic system. Economic model parameters and distributions not obtained in the systematic review were derived from other literature sources and an advisory expert panel. REVIEW METHODS Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies of men with clinically localised prostate cancer (cT1 or cT2); outcome measures included adverse events, cancer related, functional, patient driven and descriptors of care. Two reviewers abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. For meta-analyses, a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison was used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a discrete-event simulation model. RESULTS The searches identified 2722 potentially relevant titles and abstracts, from which 914 reports were selected for full-text eligibility screening. Of these, data were included from 19,064 patients across one RCT and 57 non-randomised comparative studies, with very few studies considered at low risk of bias. The results of this study, although associated with some uncertainty, demonstrated that the outcomes were generally better for robotic than for laparoscopic surgery for major adverse events such as blood transfusion and organ injury rates and for rate of failure to remove the cancer (positive margin) (odds ratio 0.69; 95% credible interval 0.51 to 0.96; probability outcome favours robotic prostatectomy = 0.987). The predicted probability of a positive margin was 17.6% following robotic prostatectomy compared with 23.6% for laparoscopic prostatectomy. Restriction of the meta-analysis to studies at low risk of bias did not change the direction of effect but did decrease the precision of the effect size. There was no evidence of differences in cancer-related, patient-driven or dysfunction outcomes. The results of the economic evaluation suggested that when the difference in positive margins is equivalent to the estimates in the meta-analysis of all included studies, robotic radical prostatectomy was on average associated with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year that is less than threshold values typically adopted by the NHS (£30,000) and becomes further reduced when the surgical capacity is high. LIMITATIONS The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that robotic prostatectomy had lower perioperative morbidity and a reduced risk of a positive surgical margin compared with laparoscopic prostatectomy although there was considerable uncertainty. Robotic prostatectomy will always be more costly to the NHS because of the fixed capital and maintenance charges for the robotic system. Our modelling showed that this excess cost can be reduced if capital costs of equipment are minimised and by maintaining a high case volume for each robotic system of at least 100-150 procedures per year. This finding was primarily driven by a difference in positive margin rate. There is a need for further research to establish how positive margin rates impact on long-term outcomes. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Measuring the population burden of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review of the estimated prevalence of impaired kidney function

BACKGROUND Internationally, there have been substantial efforts to improve the early identification of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with a view to improving survival, reducing progression and minimizing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In 2002, a new and globally adopted definition of CKD was introduced. The burden of kidney function impairment in the population is unclear and widely ranging prevalence estimates have been reported. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review, searching databases to June 2009. We included all adult population screening studies and studies based on laboratory or clinical datasets where the denominator was clear. Studies reporting prevalence estimates based on at least one eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m(2) or elevated creatinine above a stated threshold were included. Study design and quality were explored as potential factors leading to heterogeneity. RESULTS We identified 43 eligible studies (57 published reports) for inclusion. Substantial heterogeneity was observed with estimated prevalence (0.6-42.6%). The included studies demonstrated significant variation in methodology and quality that impacted on the comparability of their findings. From the higher quality studies, the six studies measuring impaired kidney function (iKF) using estimated glomerular filtration rate in community screening samples reported a prevalence ranging from 1.7% in a Chinese study to 8.1% in a US study, with four reporting an estimated prevalence of 3.2-5.6%. Heterogeneity was driven by the measure used, study design and study population. CONCLUSION In the general population, estimated iKF, particularly eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73m(2) was common with prevalence similar to diabetes mellitus. Appropriate care of patients poses a substantial global health care challenge.

Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus : systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundGlucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) analogues are a new class of drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. They are given by injection, and regulate glucose levels by stimulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion and biosynthesis, suppressing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying and promoting satiety. This systematic review aims to provide evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the GLP-1 agonists in patients not achieving satisfactory glycaemic control with one or more oral glucose lowering drugs.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to find the relevant papers. We identified 28 randomised controlled trials comparing GLP-1 analogues with placebo, other glucose-lowering agents, or another GLP-1 analogue, in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate control on a single oral agent, or on dual therapy. Primary outcomes included HbA1c, weight change and adverse events.ResultsStudies were mostly of short duration, usually 26 weeks. All GLP-1 agonists reduced HbA1c by about 1% compared to placebo. Exenatide twice daily and insulin gave similar reductions in HbA1c, but exenatide 2 mg once weekly and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily reduced it by 0.20% and 0.30% respectively more than glargine. Liraglutide 1.2 mg daily reduced HbA1c by 0.34% more than sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Exenatide and liraglutide gave similar improvements in HbA1c to sulphonylureas. Exenatide 2 mg weekly and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily reduced HbA1c by more than exenatide 10 μg twice daily and sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Exenatide 2 mg weekly reduced HbA1c by 0.3% more than pioglitazone 45 mg daily.Exenatide and liraglutide resulted in greater weight loss (from 2.3 to 5.5 kg) than active comparators. This was not due simply to nausea. Hypoglycaemia was uncommon, except when combined with a sulphonylurea. The commonest adverse events with all GLP-1 agonists were initial nausea and vomiting. The GLP-1 agonists have some effect on beta-cell function, but this is not sustained after the drug is stopped.ConclusionsGLP-1 agonists are effective in improving glycaemic control and promoting weight loss.

Relative effectiveness of robot‐assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis

To compare the effectiveness of robot‐assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Denosumab for treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours:systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM To evaluate the evidence for denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours and, using a network meta-analysis, indirectly compare denosumab with bisphosphonates and best supportive care. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), Cochrane Library (all sections) (issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011) and additional meeting abstracts (2010 and 2011) were searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Only randomised controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates or best supportive care in patients with bone metastases from any solid tumour were included. SYNTHESIS Direct evidence comparing denosumab and zoledronic acid was assessed for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other solid tumours. Denosumab was compared with pamidronate and best supportive care through a network meta-analysis for each tumour type. The primary outcomes were time to first skeletal related event (SRE) and time to first and subsequent SRE. Secondary outcomes were skeletal morbidity rate, pain, quality of life (QoL) and overall survival. RESULTS Denosumab was found to be more effective in delaying the time to first SRE and reducing the risk of first and subsequent SRE compared to zoledronic acid, placebo and pamidronate. In breast and prostate cancer, denosumab was effective in reducing skeletal morbidity rate compared with placebo. The lack of published data on pain and QoL meant that firm conclusions could not be made. Denosumab did not appear to have an affect on overall survival. LIMITATIONS Network meta-analyses are subject to uncertainties and potential biases. CONCLUSIONS Denosumab is effective in preventing SRE, but the effect on pain and QoL is unclear.

Screening for major diseases in community pharmacies: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the published evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of community pharmacy‐based screening for major diseases.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours

BACKGROUND Denosumab offers an alternative, or additional, treatment for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of denosumab, within its licensed indication, for the prevention of SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. DATA SOURCES Databases searched were MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), The Cochrane Library (all sections; Issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011). REVIEW METHODS Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates (BPs) or best supportive care (BSC) in patients with bone metastases were included. Systematic reviews and observational studies were used for safety and quality-of-life assessments. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Studies suitable for meta-analysis were synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review was conducted for cost, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness studies. The results of this informed the cost-utility modelling. This principally estimated the cost-effectiveness of denosumab relative to zoledronic acid for when BPs are currently recommended and relative to BSC when BPs are not recommended or are contraindicated. RESULTS A literature search identified 39 studies (eight suitable for NMA). Denosumab was effective in delaying time to first SRE and reducing the risk of multiple SREs compared with zoledronic acid. Generally speaking, denosumab was similar to zoledronic acid for quality of life, pain, overall survival and safety. The NMA demonstrated that denosumab was more effective in delaying SREs than placebo, but was limited by numerous uncertainties. Cost-utility modelling results for denosumab relative to zoledronic acid were driven by the availability of the patient access scheme (PAS) for denosumab. Without this, denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid. With it, the cost-effectiveness ranged between dominance for breast and prostate cancer, to between £5400 and £15,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for other solid tumours (OSTs) including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and £12,700 per QALY for NSCLC. Owing to small patient gains estimated, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab was very sensitive to the zoledronic acid price. Denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective compared with BSC. LIMITATIONS Only subgroup data were available for denosumab for NSCLC, and OSTs excluding NSCLC. The NMA was subject to numerous uncertainties. Owing to small patient gains estimated, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab was very sensitive to the zoledronic acid price. CONCLUSION Denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid and placebo, is effective in delaying SREs, but is similar with regard to quality of life and pain. Cost-effectiveness showed that without the PAS denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective relative to either zoledronic acid or BSC. With the PAS, denosumab was estimated to be cost-effective relative to zoledronic acid but not BSC. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO number CRD42011001418. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant genetic condition causing a high risk of coronary heart disease. The prevalence of this disease is about 1 in 500 in the UK, affecting about 120,000 people across the whole of the UK. Current guidelines recommend DNA testing, however, these guidelines are poorly implemented, therefore 102,000 or 85% of this group remain undiagnosed. OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic accuracy, effect on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of FH. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched until January 2011. REVIEW METHODS A systematic review of the literature on diagnostic accuracy was carried out according to standard methods. An economic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic strategies for the confirmation of clinically diagnosed FH in index cases and for the identification and subsequent testing of first-, second- and possibly third-degree biological relatives of the index case. Twelve strategies were evaluated linking diagnostic accuracy to treatment outcomes and hence quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate model and parameter uncertainty. RESULTS Fifteen studies were included for diagnostic accuracy; three reported Elucigene FH20, five reported LIPOchip, four reported low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) tests and three reported an age- and gender-specific LDL-C test against a reference standard of comprehensive genetic analysis (CGA). Sensitivity ranged from 44% to 52% for Elucigene FH20 and from 33.3% to 94.5% for various versions of LIPOchip in detecting FH-causing mutations in patients with a clinical diagnosis of FH. For LIPOchip version 10 (designed to detect 189 UK specific mutations), sensitivity would be 78.5% (based on single-centre data - Progenika, personal communication). For all other Elucigene FH20 or LIPOchip studies (apart from one LIPOchip study), specificity could not be calculated as no false-positive results could be derived from the given data. The LDL-C test was generally reported to be highly sensitive but with low specificity. For age- and gender-specific LDL-C cut-offs for cascade testing, sensitivity ranged from 68% to 96%. One UK-based study reported sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93%. For the cost-effectiveness review, only one study reporting cost-effectiveness of any one of the comparators for this assessment was identified. Pre-screen strategies such as Elucigene FH20 followed by CGA were not cost-effective and were dominated by the single more comprehensive tests (e.g. CGA). Of the non-dominated strategies, Elucigene FH20, LIPOchip platform (Spain) and CGA were all cost-effective with associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) relative to LDL-C of dominance (test is less costly and more effective), £871 and £1030 per QALY gained respectively. CGA generates the greatest QALY gain and, although other tests have lower ICERs relative to LDL-C, this is at the expense of QALY loss compared with the CGA test. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that CGA is associated with an almost 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at the conventional value of willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY gain. LIMITATIONS There was much uncertainty regarding the diagnostic accuracy of the included tests, with wide variation in sensitivity across reported studies. A lack of published information for the most recent version of LIPOchip created additional uncertainty, especially in relation to the chips ability to detect copy number changes. For the economic modelling, we aimed to choose the best studies for the base-case sensitivity of the tests; however, a number of informed choices based on clinical expert opinion had to be made in the absence of published studies for a number of other parameters in the modelling. This adds some uncertainty to our results, although it is unlikely that these would be sufficient in magnitude to alter our main results and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS As targeted tests designed to detect a limited number of genetic mutations, Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip cannot detect all cases of FH, in contrast with CGA. CGA is therefore the most effective test in terms of sensitivity and QALY gain, and is also highly cost-effective with an associated ICER of £1030 per QALY gain relative to current practice (LDL-C). Other tests such as Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip are also cost-effective; however, because of inferior sensitivity compared with CGA, these tests offer cost savings but at the expense of large QALY losses compared with CGA. Further prospective multicentred studies are required to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of new and emerging tests for FH with the LDL-C test in patients with a clinical diagnosis based on the Simon Broome criteria. Such studies should verify both test-positive and -negative results against a reference standard of CGA and should include a full economic evaluation. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

NICE guidance a comparative study of the introduction of the single technology appraisal process and comparison with guidance from Scottish Medicines Consortium

Objectives To compare the timelines and recommendations of the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), in particular since the single technology assessment (STA) process was introduced in 2005. Design Comparative study of drug appraisals published by NICE and SMC. Setting NICE and SMC. Participants All drugs appraised by SMC and NICE, from establishment of each organisation until August 2010, were included. Data were gathered from published reports on the NICE website, SMC annual reports and European Medicines Agency website. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome was time from marketing authorisation until publication of first guidance. The final outcome for each drug was documented. Drug appraisals by NICE (before and after the introduction of the STA process) and SMC were compared. Results NICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, 415 were appraised by SMC alone and 102 by NICE alone. NICE recommended, with or without restriction, 90% of drugs and SMC 80%. SMC published guidance more quickly than NICE (median 7.4 compared with 21.4 months). Overall, the STA process reduced the average time to publication compared with multiple technology assessments (median 16.1 compared with 22.8 months). However, for cancer medications, the STA process took longer than multiple technology assessment (25.2 compared with 20.0 months). Conclusions Proportions of drugs recommended for NHS use by SMC and NICE are similar. SMC publishes guidance more quickly than NICE. The STA process has improved the time to publication but not for cancer drugs. The lengthier time for NICE guidance is partly due to measures to provide transparency and the widespread consultation during the NICE process.