EstablishINg the best STEp-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma despite INhaled corticosteroids (EINSTEIN): Protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis using individual participant data (IPD)

IntroductionAsthma affects millions of children worldwide—1.1 million children in the UK. Asthma symptoms cannot be cured but can be controlled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in the majority of individuals. Treatment with a low-dose ICS, however, fails to control asthma symptoms in around 10%–15% of children and this places the individual at increased risk for an asthma attack. At present, there is no clear preferred treatment option for a child whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose ICS and international guidelines currently recommend at least three treatment options. Herein, we propose a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis (IPD-NMA) aiming to synthesise all available published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to establish the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma on ICS and help to make evidence-informed treatment choices. This will be used to parameterise a Markov-based economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment options in order to inform decisions in the context of drug formularies and clinical guidelines.Methods and analysisWe will search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, NICE Technology Appraisals and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment series for RCTs of interventions in patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS. All studies where children and adolescents were eligible for inclusion will be considered, and authors or sponsors will be contacted to request IPD on patients aged &lt;18. The reference lists of existing clinical guidelines, along with included studies and relevant reviews, will be checked to identify further relevant studies. Unpublished studies will be located by searching across a range of clinical trial registries, including internal trial registers for pharmaceutical companies. All studies will be appraised for inclusion against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. We will perform an IPD-NMA—eventually supplemented with aggregate data for the RCTs without IPD—to establish both the probability that a treatment is best and the probability that a particular treatment is most likely to be effective for a specific profile of the patient. The IPD-NMA will be performed for each outcome variable within a Bayesian framework, using the WinBUGS software. Also, potential patient-level characteristics that may modify treatment effects will be explored, which represents one of the strengths of this study.Ethics and disseminationThe Committee on Research Ethics, University of Liverpool, has confirmed that ethics review is not required. The dissemination plan consists of publishing the results in an open-access medical journal, a plain-language summary available for parents and children, dissemination via local, national and international meetings and conferences and the press offices of our Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). A synopsis of results will be disseminated to NICE and British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) as highly relevant to future clinical guideline updates.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019127599.</jats:sec

Novel oral iron therapy for iron deficiency anaemia: How to value safety in a new drug?

Aims: Novel oral iron supplements may be associated with a reduced incidence of adverse drug reactions compared to standard treatments of iron deficiency anaemia. The aim was to establish their value‐based price under conditions of uncertainty surrounding their tolerability. Methods: A discrete‐time Markov model was developed to assess the value‐based price of oral iron preparations based on their incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in the UK. Primary and secondary care resource use and health state occupancy probabilities were estimated from routine electronic health records; and unit costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Patients were pre‐menopausal women with iron deficiency anaemia who were prescribed oral iron supplementation between 2000 and 2014. Results: The model reflecting current use of iron salts yielded a mean total cost to the NHS of £779, and 0.84 QALYs over 12 months. If a new iron preparation were to reduce the risk of adverse drug reactions by 30–40%, then its value‐based price, based on a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, would be in the region of £10–£13 per month, or about 7–9 times the average price of basic iron salts. Conclusions: There are no adequate, direct comparisons of new oral iron supplements to ferrous iron salts, and therefore other approaches are needed to assess their value. Our modelling shows that they are potentially cost‐effective at prices that are an order of magnitude higher than existing iron salts

Antibiotic or silver versus standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (BASICS): a multi-centre, single-blinded, randomised trial and economic evaluation

Background Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus is one of the commonest neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Infection of the implanted shunt affects up to 15% of these patients, resulting in prolonged hospital treatment, multiple surgeries, and reduced cognition and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic (rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver shunts compared with standard shunts at reducing infection. Methods In this parallel, multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt irrespective of age at 21 regional adult and paediatric neurosurgery centres in the UK and Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 in random permuted blocks of three or six) to receive standard shunts (standard shunt group), antibiotic-impregnated (0·15% clindamycin and 0·054% rifampicin; antibiotic shunt group), or silver-impregnated shunts (silver shunt group) through a randomisation sequence generated by an independent statistician. All patients and investigators who recorded and analysed the data were masked for group assignment, which was only disclosed to the neurosurgical staff at the time of operation. Participants receiving a shunt without evidence of infection at the time of insertion were followed up for at least 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure due the infection and was analysed with Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN 49474281. Findings Between June 26, 2013, and Oct 9, 2017, we assessed 3505 patients, of whom 1605 aged up to 91 years were randomly assigned to receive either a standard shunt (n=536), an antibiotic-impregnated shunt (n=538), or a silver shunt (n=531). 1594 had a shunt inserted without evidence of infection at the time of insertion (533 in the standard shunt group, 535 in the antibiotic shunt group, and 526 in the silver shunt group) and were followed up for a median of 22 months (IQR 10–24; 53 withdrew from follow-up). 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0·38, 97·5% CI 0·18–0·80, p=0·0038) and 31 (6%) of 526 patients in the silver shunt group (0·99, 0·56–1·74, p=0·96). 135 (25%) patients in the standard shunt group, 127 (23%) in the antibiotic shunt group, and 134 (36%) in the silver shunt group had adverse events, which were not life-threatening and were mostly related to valve or catheter function. Interpretation The BASICS trial provides evidence to support the adoption of antibiotic shunts in UK patients who are having their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. This practice will benefit patients of all ages by reducing the risk and harm of shunt infection. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adalimumab for the treatment of uveitis associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Purpose To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Design A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. Participants Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. Methods The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. Main Outcome Measures Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. Results Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. Conclusions Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting

Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate for refractory uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a RCT

Abstract Background Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are at risk of uveitis. The role of adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Inc., Ludwigshafen, Germany) in the management of uveitis in children needs to be determined. Objective To compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX alone, with regard to controlling disease activity in refractory uveitis associated with JIA. Design This was a randomised (applying a ratio of 2 : 1 in favour of adalimumab), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre parallel-group trial with an integrated economic evaluation. A central web-based system used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. A cost–utility analysis based on visual acuity was conducted and a 10-year extrapolation by Markov modelling was also carried out. Setting The setting was tertiary care centres throughout the UK. Participants Patients aged 2–18 years inclusive, with persistently active JIA-associated uveitis (despite optimised MTX treatment for at least 12 weeks). Interventions All participants received a stable dose of MTX and either adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing < 30 kg or 40 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing ≥ 30 kg by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks based on body weight) or a placebo (0.8 ml as appropriate according to body weight by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks) for up to 18 months. A follow-up appointment was arranged at 6 months. Main outcome measures Primary outcome – time to treatment failure [multicomponent score as defined by set criteria based on the Standardisation of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria]. Economic outcome – incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in England and Personal Social Services providers. Full details of secondary outcomes are provided in the study protocol. Results A total of 90 participants were randomised (adalimumab, n = 60; placebo, n = 30). There were 14 (23%) treatment failures in the adalimumab group and 17 (57%) in the placebo group. The analysis of the data from the double-blind phase of the trial showed that the hazard risk (HR) of treatment failure was significantly reduced, by 75%, for participants in the adalimumab group (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.51; p < 0.0001 from log-rank test). The cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus MTX was £129,025 per QALY gained. Adalimumab-treated participants had a much higher incidence of adverse and serious adverse events. Conclusions Adalimumab in combination with MTX is safe and effective in the management of JIA-associated uveitis. However, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is < 1% at the £30,000-per-QALY threshold. Future work A clinical trial is required to define the most effective time to stop therapy. Prognostic biomarkers of early and complete response should also be identified

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

IntroductionThere is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids, and international guidelines make different recommendations.ObjectivesWe evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, the Web of Science platform, NICE Technology Appraisals, the NIHR HTA series, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants 2-agonists (LABAs) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs); LTRAs alone; theophylline; placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (Low/Medium/High dose); ICS+LABA; ICS+LTRA; LTRA alone; theophylline; placebo.ResultsOf the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials, and aggregate data from 19 trials. Compared to ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44 [95% CrI 0.19-0.90]) and with an increased FEV1 (MD 0.71 [95% CrI 0.35-1.06]). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.ConclusionUncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.Using medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting β2-agonists reduces the odds of exacerbation and increases FEV1 in patients 6 to 17 years whose asthma is uncontrolled on a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone

A “Bundle of Care” to Improve Anticoagulation Control in Patients Receiving Warfarin in Uganda and South Africa: Protocol for an Implementation Study

Background: The quality of warfarin anticoagulation among Sub-Saharan African patients is suboptimal. This is due to several factors, including a lack of standardized dosing algorithms, difficulty in providing timely international normalized ratio (INR) results, a lack of patient feedback on their experiences with treatment, a lack of education on adherence, and inadequate knowledge and training of health care workers. Low quality of warfarin anticoagulation, expressed as time in therapeutic range (TTR), is associated with higher adverse event rates, including bleeding and thrombosis, and ultimately, increased morbidity and mortality. Processes and interventions that improve this situation are urgently needed. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the “warfarin bundle,” a package of interventions to improve the quality of anticoagulation and thereby clinical outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is TTR over the initial 3 months of warfarin therapy. Methods: Patients aged 18 years or older who are newly initiated on warfarin for venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, or valvular heart disease will be enrolled and followed up for 3 months at clinics in Cape Town, South Africa, and Kampala, Uganda, where the warfarin bundle is implemented. A retrospective review of the clinical records of patients on warfarin treatment before implementation (controls) will be used for comparison. This study uses a mixed methods approach of the implementation of patient- and process-centered activities to improve the quality of anticoagulation. Patient-centered activities include the use of clinical dosing algorithms, adherence support, and root cause analysis, whereas process-centered activities include point-of-care INR testing, staff training, and patient education and training. We will assess the impact of these interventions by comparing the TTR and safety outcomes across the 2 groups, as well as the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the package. Results We started recruitment in June 2021 and stopped in August 2022, having recruited 167 participants. We obtained ethics approval from the University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee, the Provincial Health Research Committees in South Africa, the Joint Clinical Research Centre Institutional Review Board, Kampala, and the University of Liverpool Research Ethics Committee. As of February 2023, data cleaning and formal analysis are underway. We expect to publish the full results by December 2023. Conclusions We anticipate that the “bundle of care,” which includes a clinical algorithm to guide individualized dosing of warfarin, will improve INR control and TTR of patients in Uganda and South Africa. We will use these findings to design a larger, multisite clinical trial across several Sub-Saharan African countries. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/4671