Evidence-based prescribing: combining network meta-analysis with multicriteria decision analysis to choose among multiple drugs

What is the drug of choice for condition x? is among the most commonly asked questions in primary care.1 Reflecting the complexity of prescribing decisions, answering this question requires a difficult trade-off between the benefits and harms of multiple drugs for a given condition. The principles of evidence-based medicine suggest that prescribing decisions should be guided by an objective benchmark, namely scientific evidence.2 Such evidence is particularly important when choosing a first-line treatment among multiple alternatives. Unfortunately, existing clinical evidence on benefits and harms is rarely adequate to inform prescribing decisions. A randomized controlled trial comparing all relevant drugs would provide such information. However, clinical trials are often designed for regulatory purposes and, therefore, include selective patient populations and do not include all available comparator drugs.3,4 To obtain insight into the comparative benefits and harms of multiple drugs, prescribers turn to summaries of evidence to discern the most promising drugs from their less effective comparators. Recent methods used to synthesize existing evidence provide much-needed information on the comparative benefits and harms of multiple drugs. Network meta-analysis is one such method that allows for the combination of direct and indirect evidences from randomized trials, facilitating the comparison of all relevant drugs even when they are not directly compared with each other in clinical trials.5 The recent surge in the number of network meta-analyses in the general medical literature is a testament to the increasing need for comparative evidence in prescribing decisions

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment

Introduction: Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women. Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of "no screening" and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through$800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of$400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from$714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of$50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated. Conclusions: Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less. © 2012 Nayak et al

Should Research Ethics Encourage the Production of Cost-Effective Interventions?

This project considers whether and how research ethics can contribute to the provision of cost-effective medical interventions. Clinical research ethics represents an underexplored context for the promotion of cost-effectiveness. In particular, although scholars have recently argued that research on less-expensive, less-effective interventions can be ethical, there has been little or no discussion of whether ethical considerations justify curtailing research on more expensive, more effective interventions. Yet considering cost-effectiveness at the research stage can help ensure that scarce resources such as tissue samples or limited subject popula- tions are employed where they do the most good; can support parallel efforts by providers and insurers to promote cost-effectiveness; and can ensure that research has social value and benefits subjects. I discuss and rebut potential objections to the consideration of cost-effectiveness in research, including the difficulty of predicting effectiveness and cost at the research stage, concerns about limitations in cost-effectiveness analysis, and worries about overly limiting researchers’ freedom. I then consider the advantages and disadvantages of having certain participants in the research enterprise, including IRBs, advisory committees, sponsors, investigators, and subjects, consider cost-effectiveness. The project concludes by qualifiedly endorsing the consideration of cost-effectiveness at the research stage. While incorporating cost-effectiveness considerations into the ethical evaluation of human subjects research will not on its own ensure that the health care system realizes cost-effectiveness goals, doing so nonetheless represents an important part of a broader effort to control rising medical costs

The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review

There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny

Cost effectiveness of first-line oral therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension: A modelling study

Background: In recent years, a significant number of costly oral therapies have become available for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Funding decisions for these therapies requires weighing up their effectiveness and costs. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of monotherapy with oral PAH-specific therapies versus supportive care as initial therapy for patients with functional class (FC) II and III PAH in Canada. Methods: A cost-utility analysis, from the perspective of a healthcare system and based on a Markov model, was designed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with bosentan, ambrisentan, riociguat, tadalafil, sildenafil and supportive care for PAH in treatment-naïve patients. Separate analyses were conducted for cohorts of patients commencing therapy at FC II and III PAH. Transition probabilities, based on the relative risk of improving and worsening in FC with treatment versus placebo, were derived from a recent network meta-analysis. Utility values and costs were obtained from published data and clinical expert opinion. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Analysis suggests that sildenafil is the most cost-effective therapy for PAH in patients with FC II or III. Sildenafil was both the least costly and most effective therapy, thereby dominating all other treatments. Tadalafil was also less costly and more effective than supportive care in FC II and III; however, sildenafil was dominant over tadalafil. Even given the uncertainty within the clinical inputs, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that apart from sildenafil and tadalafil, the other PAH therapies had negligible probability of being the most cost effective. Conclusion: The results show that initiation of therapy with sildenafil is likely the most cost-effective strategy in PAH patients with either FC II or III disease.This research was supported by funds from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)

Communicable Diseases Prioritized for Surveillance and Epidemiological Research: Results of a Standardized Prioritization Procedure in Germany, 2011

To establish strategic priorities for the German national public health institute (RKI) and guide the institute's mid-term strategic decisions, we prioritized infectious pathogens in accordance with their importance for national surveillance and epidemiological research.We used the Delphi process with internal (RKI) and external experts and a metric-consensus approach to score pathogens according to ten three-tiered criteria. Additional experts were invited to weight each criterion, leading to the calculation of a median weight by which each score was multiplied. We ranked the pathogens according to the total weighted score and divided them into four priority groups.., Respiratory syncytial virus or Hantavirus) indicate a possible under-recognised importance within the current German public health framework. A process to strengthen respective surveillance systems and research has been started. The prioritization methodology has worked well; its modular structure makes it potentially useful for other settings

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.</p