Shijie Ren

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques to manage varicose veins: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Varicose veins are enlarged, visibly lumpy knotted veins, usually in the legs. Uncomplicated varicose veins can cause major discomfort and some complications. They are part of chronic venous disease (CVD), which is reported to have a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Traditional treatments for varicose veins involve surgical stripping and ligation and liquid sclerotherapy (LS), but can be invasive and painful. New minimally invasive treatments offer an alternative. These treatments typically involve use of laser, radiofrequency or foam sclerosant. They are increasingly widely used and offer potential benefits such as reduced complications, faster recovery, fewer physical limitations and improved quality of life. OBJECTIVE The aim of this report is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of the minimally invasive techniques of foam sclerotherapy (FS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in comparison with other techniques, including traditional surgical techniques, LS and conservative management, in the management of varicose veins. DATA SOURCES A systematic search was made of 11 bibliographic databases of published and unpublished literature from their inception to July 2011: MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; The Cochrane Library; Biological Abstracts; Science Citation Index (SCI); Social Sciences Citation Index; Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science; UK Clinical Research Network; Current Controlled Trials; and ClinicalTrials.gov. REVIEW METHODS A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques compared with other treatments, principally surgical stripping, in terms of recurrence of varicose veins, retreatment and clinical symptoms, as measured by the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), pain and quality of life. Network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness modelling were performed. RESULTS The literature search identified 1453 unique citations, of which 34 RCTs (54 papers) satisfied the criteria for the clinical effectiveness review. The minimally invasive techniques reported clinical outcomes similar to surgery. Rates of recurrence were slightly lower for EVLA, RFA and FS, especially for longer follow-up periods; VCSS score was lower for EVLA and FS than for stripping, but slightly higher for RFA; short-term pain was less for FS and RFA but higher for EVLA; higher quality-of-life scores were reported for all evaluated interventions than for stripping. Differences between treatments were therefore negligible in terms of clinical outcomes, so the treatment with the lowest cost appears to be most cost-effective. Our central estimate is that total FS costs were lowest and FS is marginally more effective than stripping. However, this result was sensitive to the model time horizon. Threshold analysis indicated that EVLA and RFA might be considered cost-effective if their costs are equivalent to stripping. These findings are subject to uncertainty on account of the risk of bias present in the evidence base and the variation in costs. LIMITATIONS The relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the techniques are principally based on rates of post-operative technical recurrence rather than symptomatic recurrence, as this was the reported outcome in all trials. The true proportion of treated individuals who are likely to present with symptoms of recurrence requiring retreatment is therefore not certain. A figure reflecting the likely proportion of treated individuals who would experience symptomatic recurrence requiring retreatment (with its associated costs), therefore, had to be calculated by the authors based on a small number of studies. The findings of this report also need to be verified by data from future trials with longer follow-up and using more standardised outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS This assessment of the currently available evidence suggests there is little to choose between the minimally invasive techniques in terms of efficacy or cost, and each offers a viable, clinically effective alternative to stripping. FS might offer the most cost-effective alternative to stripping, within certain time parameters. High-quality RCT evidence is needed. Future trials should aim to measure and report outcomes in a standardised manner, which would permit more efficient pooling of their results. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO number CRD42011001355. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic review, network meta‐analysis and exploratory cost‐effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins

A Health Technology Assessment was conducted to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques (foam sclerotherapy (FS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)) for managing varicose veins, in comparison with traditional surgery.

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression.

BACKGROUND Postnatal depression (PND) is a major depressive disorder in the year following childbirth, which impacts on women, their infants and their families. A range of interventions has been developed to prevent PND. OBJECTIVES To (1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and safety of antenatal and postnatal interventions for pregnant and postnatal women to prevent PND; (2) apply rigorous methods of systematic reviewing of quantitative and qualitative studies, evidence synthesis and decision-analytic modelling to evaluate the preventive impact on women, their infants and their families; and (3) estimate cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases (from inception to July 2013) in December 2012, and we were updated by electronic alerts until July 2013. REVIEW METHODS Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. All universal, selective and indicated preventive interventions for pregnant women and women in the first 6 postnatal weeks were included. All outcomes were included, focusing on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), diagnostic instruments and infant outcomes. The quantitative evidence was synthesised using network meta-analyses (NMAs). A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of interventions contained within the NMA for EPDS values. RESULTS From 3072 records identified, 122 papers (86 trials) were included in the quantitative review. From 2152 records, 56 papers (44 studies) were included in the qualitative review. The results were inconclusive. The most beneficial interventions appeared to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care [as shown by the mean 12-month EPDS score difference of -1.43 (95% credible interval -4.00 to 1.36)], person-centred approach (PCA)-based and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention (universal), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)-based intervention and education on preparing for parenting (selective), promoting parent-infant interaction, peer support, IPT-based intervention and PCA-based and CBT-based intervention (indicated). Women valued seeing the same health worker, the involvement of partners and access to several visits from a midwife or health visitor trained in person-centred or cognitive-behavioural approaches. The most cost-effective interventions were estimated to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care (universal), PCA-based intervention (indicated) and IPT-based intervention in the sensitivity analysis (indicated), although there was considerable uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for efficacy data was in excess of £150M for each population. Given the EVPPI values, future trials assessing the relative efficacies of promising interventions appears to represent value for money. LIMITATIONS In the NMAs, some trials were omitted because they could not be connected to the main network of evidence or did not provide EPDS scores. This may have introduced reporting or selection bias. No adjustment was made for the lack of quality of some trials. Although we appraised a very large number of studies, much of the evidence was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS Interventions warrant replication within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Future research conducting RCTs to establish which interventions are most clinically effective and cost-effective should be considered. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003273. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Assurance calculations for planning clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes

We consider the use of the assurance method in clinical trial planning. In the assurance method, which is an alternative to a power calculation, we calculate the probability of a clinical trial resulting in a successful outcome, via eliciting a prior probability distribution about the relevant treatment effect. This is typically a hybrid Bayesian-frequentist procedure, in that it is usually assumed that the trial data will be analysed using a frequentist hypothesis test, so that the prior distribution is only used to calculate the probability of observing the desired outcome in the frequentist test. We argue that assessing the probability of a successful clinical trial is a useful part of the trial planning process. We develop assurance methods to accommodate survival outcome measures, assuming both parametric and nonparametric models. We also develop prior elicitation procedures for each survival model so that the assurance calculations can be performed more easily and reliably. We have made free software available for implementing our methods.

Pre-hospital non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation

BACKGROUND Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), in the form of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel inspiratory positive airway pressure (BiPAP), is used in hospital to treat patients with acute respiratory failure. Pre-hospital NIV may be more effective than in-hospital NIV but requires additional ambulance service resources. OBJECTIVES We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-hospital NIV compared with usual care for adults presenting to the emergency services with acute respiratory failure and to identify priorities for future research. DATA SOURCES Fourteen electronic databases and research registers (including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception to August 2013, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and contacting experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS We included all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of pre-hospital NIV in patients with acute respiratory failure. Methodological quality was assessed according to established criteria. An aggregate data network meta-analysis (NMA) of mortality and intubation was used to jointly estimate intervention effects relative to usual care. A NMA, using individual patient-level data (IPD) and aggregate data where IPD were not available, was carried out to assess whether or not covariates were treatment effect modifiers. A de novo economic model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes when pre-hospital NIV (specifically CPAP provided by paramedics) and standard care (in-hospital NIV) were applied to a hypothetical cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure. RESULTS The literature searches identified 2284 citations. Of the 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria, eight were randomised controlled trials and two were quasi-randomised trials (six CPAP; four BiPAP; sample sizes 23-207 participants). IPD were available from seven trials (650 patients). The aggregate data NMA suggested that CPAP was the most effective treatment in terms of mortality (probability = 0.989) and intubation rate (probability = 0.639), and reduced both mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.41, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.20 to 0.77] and intubation rate (OR 0.32, 95% CrI 0.17 to 0.62) compared with standard care. The effect of BiPAP on mortality (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 0.65 to 6.14) and intubation rate (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.14 to 1.16) compared with standard care was uncertain. The combined IPD and aggregate data NMA suggested that sex was a statistically significant treatment effect modifier for mortality. The economic analysis showed that pre-hospital CPAP was more effective and more expensive than standard care, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £20,514 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and a 49.5% probability of being cost-effective at the £20,000-per-QALY threshold. Variation in the incidence of eligible patients had a marked impact on cost-effectiveness and the expected value of sample information for a future randomised trial. LIMITATIONS The meta-analysis lacked power to detect potentially important differences in outcome (particularly for BiPAP), the intervention was not always compared with the best alternative care (in-hospital NIV) in the primary studies and findings may not be generalisable. CONCLUSIONS Pre-hospital CPAP can reduce mortality and intubation rates, but cost-effectiveness is uncertain and the value of further randomised evaluation depends on the incidence of suitable patients. A feasibility study is required to determine if a large pragmatic trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is appropriate. STUDY REGISTRATION The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002933. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Biologic and Non-Biologic Options for the Treatment of Adults with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis after the Failure of Conventional Therapy

BackgroundUlcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. Medical management aims to induce and maintain remission and to avoid complications and the necessity for surgical intervention. Colectomy removes the source of inflammation but is associated with morbidity and mortality. Newer anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapies may improve medical outcomes, albeit at an increased cost.ObjectiveOur objective was to assess the incremental cost effectiveness of infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab versus conventional therapy and surgery from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon.MethodsA Markov model was developed with health states defined according to whether the patient is alive or dead, current treatments received, history of colectomy and level of disease control. Transition probabilities were derived from network meta-analyses (NMAs) of trials of anti-TNF-α agents in the moderate-to-severe UC population. Health utilities, colectomy rates, surgical complications and resource use estimates were derived from literature. Unit costs were drawn from standard costing sources and literature and were valued at year 2013/2014 values.ResultsFor patients in whom surgery is an option, colectomy is expected to dominate all medical treatment options. For patients in whom colectomy is not an option, infliximab and golimumab are expected to be ruled out due to dominance, whilst the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus conventional treatment is expected to be approximately £50,278 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ConclusionsBased on the NMAs, the ICERs for anti-TNF-α therapy versus conventional treatment or surgery are expected to be at best, in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The cost effectiveness of withdrawing biologic therapy upon remission and re-treating relapse is unknown.

Extrapolating Survival from Randomized Trials Using External Data: A Review of Methods:

This article describes methods used to estimate parameters governing long-term survival, or times to other events, for health economic models. Specifically, the focus is on methods that combine shorter-term individual-level survival data from randomized trials with longer-term external data, thus using the longer-term data to aid extrapolation of the short-term data. This requires assumptions about how trends in survival for each treatment arm will continue after the follow-up period of the trial. Furthermore, using external data requires assumptions about how survival differs between the populations represented by the trial and external data. Study reports from a national health technology assessment program in the United Kingdom were searched, and the findings were combined with “pearl-growing” searches of the academic literature. We categorized the methods that have been used according to the assumptions they made about how the hazards of death vary between the external and internal data and through time, and we discuss the appropriateness of the assumptions in different circumstances. Modeling choices, parameter estimation, and characterization of uncertainty are discussed, and some suggestions for future research priorities in this area are given.

Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors for Premature Ejaculation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) are prescribed off-label for the treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). OBJECTIVE To systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for PDE5-Is in the management of PE. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline and other databases were searched through September 2015. Quality of RCTs was assessed. Intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Fifteen RCTs were included. The majority were of unclear methodological quality. Pooled IELT evidence suggests that PDE5-Is are significantly more effective than placebo (231 participants, p<0.00001), that there is no difference between PDE5-Is and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 405 participants, p=0.50), and that PDE5-Is combined with an SSRI are significantly more effective than SSRIs alone (521 participants, p=0.001); however, high levels of statistical heterogeneity are evident (I2 ≥ 40%). Single-RCT evidence suggests that sildenafil is significantly more effective than the squeeze technique, but both lidocaine gel and tramadol are significantly more effective than sildenafil. Sildenafil combined with behavioural therapy is significantly more effective than behavioural therapy alone. Sexual satisfaction and ejaculatory control appear to be better with PDE5-Is compared with placebo and with PDE5-Is combined with an SSRI compared with an SSRI alone. Adverse events are reported with both PDE5-Is and other agents. CONCLUSIONS PDE5-Is are significantly more effective than placebo and PDE5-Is combined with an SSRI are significantly more effective than SSRIs alone at increasing IELT and improving other effectiveness outcomes; however, heterogeneity is evident across RCTs. The methodological quality of the majority of RCTs is unclear. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) for treating premature ejaculation. We found evidence to suggest that PDE5-Is are effective compared with placebo and that PDE5-Is combined with an SSRI are more effective than an SSRI alone. Adverse events are reported with PDE5-Is and other agents; however, the quality of the evidence is uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO registration number CRD42013005289.CONTEXT Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5is) are prescribed off-label for the treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). OBJECTIVE To systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for PDE5is in the management of PE. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION MEDLINE and other databases were searched to September 2015. Quality of RCTs was assessed. Intra-vaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Fifteen RCTs were included. The majority were of unclear methodological quality. Pooled IELT evidence suggests: PDE5is are significantly more effective than placebo (231 participants, p<0.00001); there is no difference between PDE5is and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (405 participants, p=0.50); and that PDE5is combined with an SSRI are significantly more effective than SSRIs alone (521 participants, p=0.001). However, high levels of statistical heterogeneity are evident (I2≥40%). Single RCT evidence suggests that sildenafil is significantly more effective than the squeeze technique; but both lidocaine gel and tramadol are significantly more effective than sildenafil. Sildenafil combined with behavioural therapy is significantly more effective than behavioural therapy alone. Sexual satisfaction and ejaculatory control appear better with PDE5is compared with placebo and with PDE5is combined with an SSRI compared with an SSRI alone. Adverse events are reported with both PDE5is and other agents. CONCLUSIONS PDE5is are significantly more effective than placebo and PDE5is combined with an SSRI are significantly more effective than SSRIs alone at increasing IELT and improvement in other effectiveness outcomes. However, heterogeneity is evident across RCTs. The methodological quality of the majority of RCTs is unclear. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed PDE5is for treating premature ejaculation. We found evidence to suggest that PDE5is are effective compared with placebo and that PDE5is combined with an SSRI are better than an SSRI alone. Adverse events are reported with PDE5is and other agents. However, the quality of the evidence is uncertain. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005289.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Management of Premature Ejaculation: A Systematic Review

Introduction Premature ejaculation (PE) is defined as ejaculation within 1 minute (lifelong PE) or 3 minutes (acquired PE), inability to delay ejaculation, and negative personal consequences. Management includes behavioral and pharmacologic approaches. Aim To systematically review effectiveness, safety, and robustness of evidence for complementary and alternative medicine in managing PE. Methods Nine databases including Medline were searched through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials evaluating complementary and alternative medicine for PE were included. Main Outcome Measures Studies were included if they reported on intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) and/or another validated PE measurement. Adverse effects were summarized. Results Ten randomized controlled trials were included. Two assessed acupuncture, five assessed Chinese herbal medicine, one assessed Ayurvedic herbal medicine, and two assessed topical “severance secret” cream. Risk of bias was unclear in all studies because of unclear allocation concealment or blinding, and only five studies reported stopwatch-measured IELT. Acupuncture slightly increased IELT over placebo in one study (mean difference [MD] = 0.55 minute, P = .001). In another study, Ayurvedic herbal medicine slightly increased IELT over placebo (MD = 0.80 minute, P = .001). Topical severance secret cream increased IELT over placebo in two studies (MD = 8.60 minutes, P < .001), although inclusion criteria were broad (IELT < 3 minutes). Three studies comparing Chinese herbal medicine with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) favored SSRIs (MD = 1.01 minutes, P = .02). However, combination treatment with Chinese medicine plus SSRIs improved IELT over SSRIs alone (two studies; MD = 1.92 minutes, P < .00001) and over Chinese medicine alone (two studies; MD = 2.52 minutes, P < .00001). Adverse effects were not consistently assessed but where reported were generally mild. Conclusion There is preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, Ayurvedic herbal medicine, and topical severance secret cream in improving IELT and other outcomes. However, results are based on clinically heterogeneous studies of unclear quality. There are sparse data on adverse effects or potential for drug interactions. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials would be valuable.

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal Process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of degarelix (Ferring Pharmaceuticals) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of degarelix for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company’s submission to NICE. The evidence, which included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of degarelix versus leuprorelin, found that degarelix was non-inferior to leuprorelin for reduction of testosterone levels and that degarelix achieved a more rapid suppression of prostate-specific antigen levels and subsequently decreased incidences of testosterone flare associated with luteinising hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists. However, protection against testosterone flare for the comparators in the clinical trials was not employed in line with UK clinical practice. Further claims surrounding overall survival, cardiovascular adverse events and clinical equivalence of the comparator drugs from six RCTs of degarelix should be regarded with caution because of flaws and inconsistencies in the pooling of trial data to draw conclusions. The cost-effectiveness evidence included a de novo economic model. Based on the ERG’s preferred base case, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICER) for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin was £14,798 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Additional scenario analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin ranging from £17,067 to £35,589 per QALY gained. Subgroup analyses undertaken using the Appraisal Committee’s preferred assumptions suggested that degarelix was not cost effective for the subgroup with metastatic disease but could be cost effective for the subgroup with spinal metastases. The company submitted further evidence to NICE following an initial negative Appraisal Committee decision. Further analyses from the Decision Support Unit found that that, whilst some evidence indicated that degarelix could be cost effective for a small subgroup of people with spinal cord compression (SCC), data on the potential size of this subgroup and the rate of SCC were insufficient to estimate an ICER based on the evidence submitted by the company and a separately commissioned systematic review. NICE recommended degarelix as an option for treating advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in people with spinal metastases, only if the commissioner can achieve at least the same discounted drug cost as that available to the UK NHS in June 2016.