Intensive versus standard dose statin therapy: the costs and benefits for patients with acute coronary syndrome

Introduction: Recent NICE guidance in England and Wales states that statin therapy for secondary CVD should "usually be initiated with a drug with a low acquisition cost (taking into account required daily dose and product price per dose)". Intensive dose statin therapy is more costly than standard dose, but offers additional benefits and may potentially be more cost effective for a sub-group of high risk patients. Objective: To determine if the strategy of treating ACS patients with intensive dose statin compared with standard dose statin can be considered to be cost effective and to what extent these results are influenced by the age of the patient at start of treatment. Methods: A Markov model was used to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with a lifetime of intensive dose (represented by 80mg atorvastatin) versus standard dose (represented by 20mg simvastatin) treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Health states included unstable angina, MI, stroke, fatal CHD, fatal stroke, or non vascular death. The benefits associated with statin treatment were modelled by applying the relative risks from a meta-analysis of 4 large RCTs reporting clinical endpoints. Costs and utilities assigned to health states were derived from a review of published evidence. Results: Treatment with intensive dose statin therapy offers additional benefits over standard dose therapy. The cost offsets through avoided events are less than the associated treatment costs and result in a cost per QALY of around £24,000 for patients with ACS starting treatment at 60 years of age and falling to around £14,000 for patients starting treatment at 70 years. The key driver of cost effectiveness is the relative risk for mortality. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that intensive statin regimens (represented by atorvastatin 80mg/day) are cost effective compared with standard statin regimens (represented by simvastatin 20mg/day) for patients with ACS over the age of 60 years. A recent registry study reports a mean age of 70 years for ACS patients admitted to UK hospitals and hence this comparison applies to the great majority of ACS patients

Intensive versus standard dose statin therapy: the costs and benefits for patients with acute coronary syndrome

Introduction: Recent NICE guidance in England and Wales states that statin therapy for secondary CVD should "usually be initiated with a drug with a low acquisition cost (taking into account required daily dose and product price per dose)". Intensive dose statin therapy is more costly than standard dose, but offers additional benefits and may potentially be more cost effective for a sub-group of high risk patients. Objective: To determine if the strategy of treating ACS patients with intensive dose statin compared with standard dose statin can be considered to be cost effective and to what extent these results are influenced by the age of the patient at start of treatment. Methods: A Markov model was used to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with a lifetime of intensive dose (represented by 80mg atorvastatin) versus standard dose (represented by 20mg simvastatin) treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Health states included unstable angina, MI, stroke, fatal CHD, fatal stroke, or non vascular death. The benefits associated with statin treatment were modelled by applying the relative risks from a meta-analysis of 4 large RCTs reporting clinical endpoints. Costs and utilities assigned to health states were derived from a review of published evidence. Results: Treatment with intensive dose statin therapy offers additional benefits over standard dose therapy. The cost offsets through avoided events are less than the associated treatment costs and result in a cost per QALY of around £24,000 for patients with ACS starting treatment at 60 years of age and falling to around £14,000 for patients starting treatment at 70 years. The key driver of cost effectiveness is the relative risk for mortality. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that intensive statin regimens (represented by atorvastatin 80mg/day) are cost effective compared with standard statin regimens (represented by simvastatin 20mg/day) for patients with ACS over the age of 60 years. A recent registry study reports a mean age of 70 years for ACS patients admitted to UK hospitals and hence this comparison applies to the great majority of ACS patients

Economics of tandem mass spectrometry screening of neonatal inherited disorders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for phenylketonuria (PKU) and medium-chain acyl-coA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry (tandem MS). Methods: A systematic review of clinical efficacy evidence and cost-effectiveness modeling of screening in newborn infants within a UK National Health Service perspective was performed. Marginal costs, life-years gained, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves are presented. Results: Substituting the use of tandem MS for existing technologies for the screening of PKU increases costs with no increase in health outcomes. However, the addition of screening for MCAD deficiency as part of a neonatal screening program for PKU using tandem MS, with an operational range of 50,000 to 60,000 specimens per system per year, would result in a mean incremental cost of −£17,298 (−£129,174, £66,434) for each cohort of 100,000 neonates screened. This cost saving is associated with a mean incremental gain of 57.3 (28.0, 91.4) life-years. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analysis using economic modeling indicates that substituting the use of tandem MS for existing technologies for the screening of PKU alone is not economically justified. However, the addition of screening for MCAD deficiency as part of a neonatal screening program for PKU using tandem MS would be economically attractive

Newborn screening using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review

Objectives: To evaluate the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of neonatal screening for phenylketonuria (PKU) and medium-chain acyl-coA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry (tandem MS). Study design: Systematic review of published research. Data sources: Studies were identified by searching 12 electronic bibliographic databases; conference proceedings and experts consulted. Results: Six studies were selected for inclusion in the review. The evidence of neonatal screening for PKU and MCAD deficiency using tandem MS was primarily from observational data of large-scale prospective newborn screening programmes and systematic screening studies from Australia, Germany and the USA. Tandem MS based newborn screening of dried blood spots for PKU and/or MCAD deficiency was shown to be highly sensitive (>93.220%) and highly specific (>99.971%). The false positive rate for PKU screening was less than 0.046% and for MCAD deficiency the false positive rate was less than 0.023%. The positive predictive values ranged from 20 to 32% and 19 to 100%, respectively. Conclusions: This review suggests that neonatal screening of dried blood spots using a single analytical technique (tandem MS) is highly sensitive and specific for detecting cases of PKU and MCAD deficiency, and provides a basis for modelling of the clinical benefits and potential costeffectiveness

Telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure: cost-effectiveness modelling of alternative service designs.

Objectives To estimate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring strategies versus usual care for adults recently discharged after a heart failure (HF) exacerbation. Design Decision analysis modelling of cost-effectiveness using secondary data sources. Setting Acute hospitals in the UK. Patients Patients recently discharged (within 28 days) after a HF exacerbation. Interventions Structured telephone support (STS) via human to machine (STS HM) interface, (2) STS via human to human (STS HH) contact and (3) home telemonitoring (TM), compared with (4) usual care. Main outcome measures The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by each strategy compared to the next most effective alternative and the probability of each strategy being cost-effective at varying willingness to pay per QALY gained. Results TM was the most cost-effective strategy in the scenario using these base case costs. Compared with usual care, TM had an estimated incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £11 873/QALY, whereas STS HH had an ICER of £228 035/QALY against TM. STS HM was dominated by usual care. Threshold analysis suggested that the monthly cost of TM has to be higher than £390 to have an ICER greater than £20 000/QALY against STS HH. Scenario analyses performed using higher costs of usual care, higher costs of STS HH and lower costs of TM do not substantially change the conclusions. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that TM was an optimal strategy in most scenarios, but there is considerable uncertainty in relation to clear descriptions of the interventions and robust estimation of costs

Rivaroxaban for Preventing Atherothrombotic Events in People with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Elevated Cardiac Biomarkers: 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 company that manufactures rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban for the prevention of adverse outcomes in patients after the acute management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). 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 for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from a randomised, double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled trial of rivaroxaban (either 2.5 or 5 mg twice daily) in patients with recent ACS [unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)]. In addition, all patients received antiplatelet therapy [aspirin alone or aspirin and a thienopyridine either as clopidogrel (approximately 99 %) or ticlopidine (approximately 1 %) according to national or local guidelines]. The higher dose of rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) did not form part of the marketing authorisation. A post hoc subgroup analysis of the licensed patients who had ACS with elevated cardiac biomarkers (that is, patients with STEMI and NSTEMI) without prior stroke or transient ischaemic stroke showed that compared with standard care, the addition of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) to existing antiplatelet therapy reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke, but increased the risk of major bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. However, there were a number of limitations in the evidence base that warrant caution in its interpretation. In particular, the evidence may be confounded because of the post hoc subgroup analysis, modified intention-to-treat analyses, high dropout rates and missing vital status data. Results from the company's economic evaluation showed that the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin plus clopidogrel or with aspirin alone compared with aspirin plus clopidogrel or aspirin alone was £6203 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In contrast, the ERG's preferred base case estimate was £5622 per QALY gained. The ICER did not rise above £10,000 per QALY gained in any of the sensitivity analyses undertaken by the ERG, although the inflexibility of the company's economic model precluded the ERG from formally undertaking all desired exploratory analyses. As such, only a crude exploration of the impact of additional bleeding events could be undertaken. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that the ICERs presented were all within the range that could be considered cost effective and that the results of the ERG's exploratory sensitivity and scenario analyses suggested that the ICER was unlikely to increase to the extent that it would become unacceptable. The Appraisal Committee therefore concluded that rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin plus clopidogrel, or with aspirin alone, was a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for preventing atherothrombotic events in people with ACS and elevated cardiac biomarkers

The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are of increasing importance within health technology assessment due to time and resource constraints. There are many rapid review methods available although there is little guidance as to the most suitable methods. We present three case studies employing differing methods to suit the evidence base for each review and outline some issues to consider when selecting an appropriate method. METHODS: Three recently completed systematic review short reports produced for the UK National Institute for Health Research were examined. Different approaches to rapid review methods were used in the three reports which were undertaken to inform the commissioning of services within the NHS and to inform future trial design. We describe the methods used, the reasoning behind the choice of methods and explore the strengths and weaknesses of each method. RESULTS: Rapid review methods were chosen to meet the needs of the review and each review had distinctly different challenges such as heterogeneity in terms of populations, interventions, comparators and outcome measures (PICO) and/or large numbers of relevant trials. All reviews included at least 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), each with numerous included outcomes. For the first case study (sexual health interventions), very diverse studies in terms of PICO were included. P-values and summary information only were presented due to substantial heterogeneity between studies and outcomes measured. For the second case study (premature ejaculation treatments), there were over 100 RCTs but also several existing systematic reviews. Data for meta-analyses were extracted directly from existing systematic reviews with new RCT data added where available. For the final case study (cannabis cessation therapies), studies included a wide range of interventions and considerable variation in study populations and outcomes. A brief summary of the key findings for each study was presented and narrative synthesis used to summarise results for each pair of interventions compared. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid review methods need to be chosen to meet both the nature of the evidence base of a review and the challenges presented by the included studies. Appropriate methods should be chosen after an assessment of the evidence base

The ACUTE (Ambulance CPAP: Use, Treatment effect and economics) feasibility study: a pilot randomised controlled trial of prehospital CPAP for acute respiratory failure

Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common and life-threatening medical emergency. Standard prehospital management involves controlled oxygen therapy and disease-specific ancillary treatments. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment that could be delivered by emergency medical services. However, it is uncertain whether this treatment could work effectively in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) ambulance services and if it represents value for money. Methods: An individual patient randomised controlled external pilot trial will be conducted comparing prehospital CPAP to standard oxygen therapy for ARF. Adults presenting to ambulance service clinicians will be eligible if they have respiratory distress with peripheral oxygen saturation below British Thoracic Society (BTS) target levels, despite titrated supplemental oxygen. Enrolled patients will be allocated (1:1 simple randomisation) to prehospital CPAP (O_two system) or standard oxygen therapy using identical sealed boxes. Feasibility outcomes will include incidence of recruited eligible patients, number of erroneously recruited patients and proportion of cases adhering to allocation schedule and treatment, followed up at 30 days and with complete data collection. Effectiveness outcomes will comprise survival at 30 days (definitive trial primary end point), endotracheal intubation, admission to critical care, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) dyspnoea score, EQ-5D-5L and health care resource use at 30 days. The cost-effectiveness of CPAP, and of conducting a definitive trial, will be evaluated by updating an existing economic model. The trial aims to recruit 120 patients over 12 months from four regional ambulance hubs within the West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS). This sample size will allow estimation of feasibility outcomes with a precision of < 5%. Feasibility and effectiveness outcomes will be reported descriptively for the whole trial population, and each trial arm, together with their 95% confidence intervals. Discussion: This study will determine if it is feasible, acceptable and cost-effective to undertake a full-scale trial comparing CPAP and standard oxygen treatment, delivered by ambulance service clinicians for ARF. This will inform NHS practice and prevent inappropriate prehospital CPAP adoption on the basis of limited evidence and at a potentially substantial cost. Trial registration: ISRCTN12048261. Registered on 30 August 2017. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN1204826

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. 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 for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage