Leukotriene antagonists as first-line or add-on asthma controller therapy

Most randomized trials of treatment for asthma study highly selected patients under idealized conditions. METHODS: We conducted two parallel, multicenter, pragmatic trials to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) as compared with either an inhaled glucocorticoid for first-line asthma-controller therapy or a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients already receiving inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. Eligible primary care patients 12 to 80 years of age had impaired asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [MiniAQLQ] score =6) or inadequate asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score =1). We randomly assigned patients to 2 years of open-label therapy, under the care of their usual physician, with LTRA (148 patients) or an inhaled glucocorticoid (158 patients) in the first-line controller therapy trial and LTRA (170 patients) or LABA (182 patients) added to an inhaled glucocorticoid in the add-on therapy trial. RESULTS: Mean MiniAQLQ scores increased by 0.8 to 1.0 point over a period of 2 years in both trials. At 2 months, differences in the MiniAQLQ scores between the two treatment groups met our definition of equivalence (95% confidence interval [CI] for an adjusted mean difference, -0.3 to 0.3). At 2 years, mean MiniAQLQ scores approached equivalence, with an adjusted mean difference between treatment groups of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.13) in the first-line controller therapy trial and of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.11) in the add-on therapy trial. Exacerbation rates and ACQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Study results at 2 months suggest that LTRA was equivalent to an inhaled glucocorticoid as first-line controller therapy and to LABA as add-on therapy for diverse primary care patients. Equivalence was not proved at 2 years. The interpretation of results of pragmatic research may be limited by the crossover between treatment groups and lack of a placebo group

A randomised trial of the effect and cost-effectiveness of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes:The Anglo–Danish–Dutch Study of Intensive treatment in people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care (ADDITION-Europe) study

Background: Intensive treatment (IT) of cardiovascular risk factors can halve mortality among people with established type 2 diabetes but the effects of treatment earlier in the disease trajectory are uncertain.  Objective: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment of screen-detected diabetes.  Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial.  Setting: Three hundred and forty-three general practices in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Cambridge and Leicester, UK.  Participants: Individuals aged 40–69 years with screen-detected diabetes.  Interventions: Screening plus routine care (RC) according to national guidelines or IT comprising screening and promotion of target-driven intensive management (medication and promotion of healthy lifestyles) of hyperglycaemia, blood pressure and cholesterol.  Main outcome measures: The primary end point was a composite of first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality/morbidity, revascularisation and non-traumatic amputation) during a mean [standard deviation (SD)] follow-up of 5.3 (1.6) years. Secondary end points were (1) all-cause mortality; (2) microvascular outcomes (kidney function, retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy); and (3) patient-reported outcomes (health status, well-being, quality of life, treatment satisfaction). Economic analyses estimated mean costs (UK 2009/10 prices) and quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS perspective. We extrapolated data to 30 years using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model [version 1.3; © Isis Innovation Ltd 2010; see www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/outcomesmodel (accessed 27 January 2016)].  Results: We included 3055 (RC, n = 1377; IT, n = 1678) of the 3057 recruited patients [mean (SD) age 60.3 (6.9) years] in intention-to-treat analyses. Prescription of glucose-lowering, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication increased in both groups, more so in the IT group than in the RC group. There were clinically important improvements in cardiovascular risk factors in both study groups. Modest but statistically significant differences between groups in reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure and cholesterol favoured the IT group. The incidence of first cardiovascular event [IT 7.2%, 13.5 per 1000 person-years; RC 8.5%, 15.9 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05] and all-cause mortality (IT 6.2%, 11.6 per 1000 person-years; RC 6.7%, 12.5 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21) did not differ between groups. At 5 years, albuminuria was present in 22.7% and 24.4% of participants in the IT and RC groups, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07), retinopathy in 10.2% and 12.1%, respectively (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10), and neuropathy in 4.9% and 5.9% (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34), respectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate increased between baseline and follow-up in both groups (IT 4.31 ml/minute; RC 6.44 ml/minute). Health status, well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction did not differ between the groups. The intervention cost £981 per patient and was not cost-effective at costs ≥ £631 per patient.  Conclusions: Compared with RC, IT was associated with modest increases in prescribed treatment, reduced levels of risk factors and non-significant reductions in cardiovascular events, microvascular complications and death over 5 years. IT did not adversely affect patient-reported outcomes. IT was not cost-effective but might be if delivered at a reduced cost. The lower than expected event rate, heterogeneity of intervention delivery between centres and improvements in general practice diabetes care limited the achievable differences in treatment between groups. Further follow-up to assess the legacy effects of early IT is warranted

Reach, recruitment, dose, and intervention fidelity of the GoActive school-based physical activity intervention in the UK: a mixed-methods process evaluation

School-based multi-component physical activity (PA) promotion is advocated; however, research has indicated that a multi-component approach may not always be effective at increasing adolescent PA. Evaluation of the GoActive 12-week multi-component school-based intervention showed no effect on adolescent PA. A mixed-methods process evaluation was embedded to facilitate greater understanding of the results, to elicit subgroup perceptions, and to provide insight into contextual factors influencing intervention implementation. This paper presents the reach, recruitment, dose, and fidelity of GoActive, and identifies challenges to implementation. The process evaluation employed questionnaires (1543 Year 9s), individual interviews (16 Year 9s; 7 facilitators; 9 contact teachers), focus groups (48 Year 9s; 58 mentors), alongside GoActive website analytics and researcher observations. GoActive sessions reached 39.4% of Year 9s. Intervention satisfaction was relatively high for mentors (87.3%) and facilitators (85.7%), but lower for Year 9s (59.5%) and teachers (50%). Intervention fidelity was mixed within and between schools. Mentorship was the most implemented component. Factors potentially contributing to low implementation included ambiguity of the roles subgroups played within intervention delivery, Year 9 engagement, institutional support, and further school-level constraints. Multiple challenges and varying contextual considerations hindered the implementation of GoActive in multiple school sites. Methods to overcome contextual challenges to implementation warrant in-depth consideration and innovative approaches

Expert elicitation to inform a cost effectiveness analysis of screening for renal cancer: methodological and practical considerations

Background: Population screening for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using ultrasound has the potential to improve survival outcomes; however a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has yet to be performed. Due to the lack of existing evidence, we performed structured expert elicitation to derive unknown quantities to inform the CEA. Objectives: To elicit the cancer stage distribution (proportion of individuals with each stage of cancer) for different RCC screening scenarios and the annual transition probabilities for undiagnosed disease becoming diagnosed in the NHS. Methods: The study design and reporting adhered to the Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model-Based Economic Evaluations. The elicitation was conducted face-to-face or via telephone between each individual expert and the facilitator, aided by online material. For multinomial data, Connor Mosimann and modified Connor Mosimann distributions were fitted for each expert and for all experts combined using mathematical linear pooling. Results: A total of 24 clinical experts were invited, and 71% participated (7 urologists, 6 oncologists, 4 radiologists). The modified Connor Mosimann distribution provided the best fit for the majority of elicited quantities. Greater uncertainty was noted for the elicited transition probabilities compared to the elicited stage distributions. Conclusion: We performed the first expert elicitation of RCC screening parameters, crucial information which will inform the CEA of screening. Additionally, the elicited quantities may enable future health economic evaluations assessing the value of diagnostic tools and pathways in RCC

Cost Effectiveness of Imiquimod 5% Cream Compared with Methyl Aminolevulinate-Based Photodynamic Therapy in the Treatment of Non-Hyperkeratotic, Non-Hypertrophic Actinic (Solar) Keratoses: A Decision Tree Model

Background: Actinic keratosis (AK) is caused by chronic exposure to UV radiation (sunlight). First-line treatments are cryosurgery, topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and topical diclofenac. Where these are contraindicated or less appropriate, alternatives are imiquimod and photodynamic therapy (PDT). Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of imiquimod and methyl aminolevulinate-based PDT (MAL-PDT) from the perspective of the UK NHS. Methods: A decision tree model was populated with data from a literature review and used to estimate costs and QALYs gained and incremental cost effectiveness over 1 year. The model simulated patients who were in secondary care, who had four to nine AK lesions, and for whom cryosurgery, 5-FU and diclofenac were contraindicated or considered less appropriate. Results: Over 1 year, imiquimod cost £174 less than MAL-PDT (year 2006 values) but resulted in 0.005 fewer QALYs gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MAL-PDT over imiquimod was £34 576. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was a 75% probability that imiquimod was cost effective compared with MAL-PDT at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, falling to 73% at £30 000. Conclusions: Imiquimod may be the more cost-effective treatment at conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds. A direct head-to-head study of MAL-PDT versus imiquimod is required to reduce uncertainty.Actinic-keratosis, treatment, Cost-utility, Imiquimod, therapeutic use, Methyl-aminolevulinate, therapeutic use, Photochemotherapy.

Home-Based Medication Review in Older People: Is it Cost Effective?

Background: Medication review by pharmacists is increasingly being implemented in the primary care setting and has been incorporated into the new pharmacy contract in the UK. This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of home-based medication review in older people. Methods: This economic evaluation was based on a randomised controlled trial (the HOMER [HOME-based medication Review] trial). Patients aged >80 years (n_=_872) were recruited if admitted as an emergency to an acute or community hospital in Norfolk or Suffolk (any cause), returning to their own home or warden-controlled accommodation, and taking two or more drugs daily on discharge. Patients randomised to the intervention group received two home visits by a pharmacist within 2 and 8 weeks of discharge to educate patients and carers about their drugs, remove out-of-date drugs, inform GPs of drug reactions or interactions and inform the local pharmacist if an adherence aid was needed. The control arm received usual care. Economic evaluation was performed from the UK NHS perspective, with follow-up for 6 months and cost data from 2000. Resource use data were collected from hospital episode statistics and from a sample of GP records of trial participants. Intervention, hospital, ambulance and general practice costs were considered to determine average costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Use of the EQ-5D questionnaire permitted outcomes to be expressed as QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to calculate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Mortality and admission data were available for 829 of 855 patients included in the study (415 intervention and 414 control patients). Of those patients randomised to the intervention group, 358 had a medication review at a total intervention cost of Lstg 51_622 (or Lstg 124 per randomised patient). The intervention did not reduce hospital admissions. The average cost per intervention group patient was Lstg 1695 compared with Lstg 1424 for control patients. The incremental cost per life year gained through the intervention was Lstg 33_541. The incremental cost per QALY gained in the intervention was Lstg 54_454. Sensitivity analysis suggested a 25% probability that home-based medication review is cost effective using a threshold of Lstg 30_000 per QALY. Conclusion: The current policy imperative for implementing medicines review needs to be reconsidered in the light of the findings of this study: a small, non significant gain in quality of life, no reduction in hospital admissions and a low probability of cost effectiveness.Cost-effectiveness, Cost-utility, Elderly, Pharmaceutical-care-programmes

Home gardening of yellow cassava and orange maize for the prevention of nutritional blindness in children: An economic evaluation and value of information analysis

Objectives: Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of childhood blindness worldwide, affecting mostly Sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to predict the cost-effectiveness of home gardening (HG) of yellow cassava and orange maize to prevent nutritional blindness in children below 5 years and to assess the likely value of obtaining additional information in reducing uncertainty surrounding its cost-effectiveness. Methods: We developed a Markov model and carried out probabilistic sensitivity analysis with a value of information analysis. We costed resources from a societal perspective and outcomes were measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Results: HG was estimated to cost an additional Intl$395.00 per DALY averted, with a 72.27$2800 per DALY. The expected value of information was estimated to be Intl$29 843.50 for 1 child or Intl$925 billion for 31 million Nigerian children affected by the decision. Further research is only worthwhile for 1 parameter (relative risk of low serum retinol; expected value of perfect parameter information Intl$29 854.53 per child and Intl$925 billion for 31 million children). Conclusion: HG of yellow cassava and orange maize is expected to be highly cost-effective in preventing nutritional blindness in Nigerian children. Worthwhile further research includes a cost analysis of the intervention and a high-quality randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of HG on serum retinol levels in young children

The cost to the United Kingdom National Health Service of Managing Erectile Dysfunction: the impact of sildenafil and prescribing restrictions

Objective: To estimate the annual direct cost of managing erectile dysfunction (ED) to the UK National Health Service (NHS) and to examine the impact of the introduction of sildenafil in 1998 and Schedule 11 restrictions in 1999. Design: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness approach was used. The period 1997 to 2000 was covered. The numbers of ED prescriptions, prosthesis implantations and general practitioner (GP) consultations were retrieved retrospectively from UK resource utilisation databases. The number of specialist consultations and psychosexual therapy sessions were estimated from NHS clinic data. National resource unit costs were applied. Main outcomes and results: Between 1997 and 2000 the number of men presenting with ED increased from 79 800 to 257 984. The cost to the NHS increased from 㲹.4 million to 㷳.8 million (2000 estimates). The cost per patient fell from 㳶8 to 㲸6. In 1997, most NHS costs came from psychosexual therapy (30.7%), specialist consultations (20.2%) and intracavernosal injections (26.6%). By 2000, NHS costs came primarily from specialist consultations (32.0%), sildenafil prescriptions (26.2%), psychosexual therapy (13.6%) and GP consultations (12.0%). The annual cost was most sensitive to the number of drug prescriptions and specialist consultations. Conclusions: The increased NHS cost of managing ED was due mainly to a three-fold increase in the number of men presenting to GPs, substantial numbers of whom were then referred for specialist consultations under Schedule 11 restrictions. This naturally resulted in the increased use of all resources including sildenafil. The cost effectiveness of transferring prescribing responsibility in cases of severe distress from specialists to GPs in primary care remains to be determined.No Full Tex

Effect of adding a diagnostic aid to best practice to manage suspicious pigmented lesions in primary care: Randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To assess whether adding a novel computerised diagnostic tool, the MoleMate system (SIAscopy with primary care scoring algorithm), to current best practice results in more appropriate referrals of suspicious pigmented lesions to secondary care, and to assess its impact on clinicians and patients. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: 15 general practices in eastern England. Participants: 1297 adults with pigmented skin lesions not immediately diagnosed as benign. Interventions: Patients were assessed by trained primary care clinicians using best practice (clinical history, naked eye examination, seven point checklist) either alone (control group) or with the MoleMate system (intervention group). Main outcome measures: Appropriateness of referral, defined as the proportion of referred lesions that were biopsied or monitored. Secondary outcomes related to the clinicians (diagnostic performance, confidence, learning effects) and patients (satisfaction, anxiety). Economic evaluation, diagnostic performance of the seven point checklist, and five year follow-up of melanoma incidence were also secondary outcomes and will be reported later. Results: 1297 participants with 1580 lesions were randomised: 643 participants with 788 lesions to the intervention group and 654 participants with 792 lesions to the control group. The appropriateness of referral did not differ significantly between the intervention or control groups: 56.8% (130/229) v 64.5% (111/172); difference -8.1% (95% confidence interval -18.0% to 1.8%). The proportion of benign lesions appropriately managed in primary care did not differ (intervention 99.6% v control 99.2%, P=0.46), neither did the percentage agreement with an expert decision to biopsy or monitor (intervention 98.5% v control 95.7%, P=0.26). The percentage agreement with expert assessment that the lesion was benign was significantly lower with MoleMate (intervention 84.4% v control 90.6%, P<0.001), and a higher proportion of lesions were referred (intervention 29.8% v control 22.4%, P=0.001). Thirty six histologically confirmed melanomas were diagnosed: 18/18 were appropriately referred in the intervention group and 17/18 in the control group. Clinicians in both groups were confident, and there was no evidence of learning effects, and therefore contamination, between groups. Patients in the intervention group ranked their consultations higher for thoroughness and reassuring care, although anxiety scores were similar between the groups. Conclusions: We found no evidence that the MoleMate system improved appropriateness of referral. The systematic application of best practice guidelines alone was more accurate than the MoleMate system, and both performed better than reports of current practice. Therefore the systematic application of best practice guidelines (including the seven point checklist) should be the paradigm for management of suspicious skin lesions in primary care