A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of treatments for venous leg ulcers

Objective: The aim of this review was to identify, and assess the quality of, published model-based economic evaluations relating to treatments for patients with venous leg ulcers to help inform future decision-analytic models in this clinical area. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on six electronic databases, from database inception until 21 May 2018. Search results were screened against predefined criteria by two independent reviewers. Data was then extracted from the included studies using a standardised form, whilst the decision-analytic model-specific Philips Checklist was used to assess quality and to inform model critique. Results: A total of 23 models were identified, 12 studies used a Markov modelling approach, five used decision trees and six studies did not detail the model type. Studies were predominantly from the National Health Service (NHS)/payer perspective, with only two taking a societal perspective. Interventions were wide ranging, but dressing technologies (11/23) were most common. The intervention studied was found to be dominant in 22/23 studies. The reporting quality of papers was mostly low, with evidence behind model structures, time horizons and data selection consistently underreported across the included papers. Conclusions: This review has identified a sizeable literature of model-based economic evaluations, evaluating treatments for venous leg ulcers. However, the methods used to conduct such studies were generally poorly reported. In particular, the reporting of evidence surrounding the model structure, justification of the time horizon used and the rationale for selecting data inputs should be focused on in any future models developed

An introduction to the methods of decision-analytic modelling used in economic evaluations for Dermatologists

Economic evaluations are used to identify which health treatments or preventions, offer the most effective use of resources, or value for money. This is achieved by identifying, measuring and valuing the inputs and outcomes of alternative interventions. These evaluations are often conducted alongside clinical trials, however these trials may end before the outcomes of economic interest have been observed and measured. An alternative to within trial economic evaluation is to use decision modelling, which can model the cost‐effectiveness of interventions over an extended time period. This paper aims to provide an overview for clinicians of the different modelling techniques used within health economic evaluations and to introduce methods for critical appraisal. The most common modelling approaches, and their associated strengths and weaknesses, were discussed. Alongside this, practical examples specific to dermatology were given. These examples include studies where the model chosen or the methods used may not have been the most appropriate. Methods for critical appraisal were also highlighted. Common modelling approaches include Decision Trees, Markov Cohort, extensions to the Markov model (Monte Carlo Simulation), and Discrete Event Simulation models. Items of the Philips Checklist were discussed in the context of performing critical appraisal. Health economic decision models are multi‐faceted and can often be complex. Full critical appraisal requires clinicians’ unique knowledge, which is complementary to the knowledge of health economists

The Use of Decision–Analytic Models in Atopic Eczema: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to identify and assess the quality of published economic decision–analytic models within atopic eczema against best practice guidelines, with the intention of informing future decision–analytic models within this condition. Methods: A systematic search of the following online databases was performed: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, Scopus, Health Technology Assessment, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Science. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they described a decision–analytic model evaluating both the costs and benefits associated with an intervention or prevention for atopic eczema. Data were extracted using a standardised form by two independent reviewers, whilst quality was assessed using the model-specific Philips criteria. Results: Twenty-four models were identified, evaluating either preventions (n = 12) or interventions (n = 12): 14 reported using a Markov modelling approach, four utilised decision trees and one a discrete event simulation, whilst five did not specify the approach. The majority, 22 studies, reported that the intervention was dominant or cost effective, given the assumptions and analytical perspective taken. Notably, the models tended to be short-term (16 used a time horizon of ≤1 year), often providing little justification for the limited time horizon chosen. The methodological and reporting quality of the studies was generally weak, with only seven studies fulfilling more than 50% of their applicable Philips criteria. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review of decision models in eczema. Whilst the majority of models reported favourable outcomes in terms of the cost effectiveness of the new intervention, the usefulness of these findings for decision-making is questionable. In particular, there is considerable scope for increasing the range of interventions evaluated, for improving modelling structures and reporting quality

Clinical outcomes and response to treatment of patients receiving topical treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: a prospective cohort study

Background: pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is an uncommon dermatosis with a limited evidence base for treatment. Objective: to estimate the effectiveness of topical therapies in the treatment of PG. Methods: prospective cohort study of UK secondary care patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG suitable for topical treatment (recruited July 2009 to June 2012). Participants received topical therapy following normal clinical practice (mainly Class I-III topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%). Primary outcome: speed of healing at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes: proportion healed by 6 months; time to healing; global assessment; inflammation; pain; quality-of-life; treatment failure and recurrence. Results: Sixty-six patients (22 to 85 years) were enrolled. Clobetasol propionate 0.05% was the most commonly prescribed therapy. Overall, 28/66 (43.8%) of ulcers healed by 6 months. Median time-to-healing was 145 days (95% CI: 96 days, ∞). Initial ulcer size was a significant predictor of time-to-healing (hazard ratio 0.94 (0.88;80 1.00); p = 0.043). Four patients (15%) had a recurrence. Limitations: No randomised comparator Conclusion: Topical therapy is potentially an effective first-line treatment for PG that avoids possible side effects associated with systemic therapy. It remains unclear whether more severe disease will respond adequately to topical therapy alone

Additional file 1: of Economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema: a protocol for a systematic review

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol. (DOCX 15kb

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study

BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsThe PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FindingsWe included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes

Follow-on rifaximin for the prevention of recurrence following standard treatment of infection with clostridium fifficile (RAPID): a randomised placebo controlled trial

©2018 The Authors. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316794Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) recurs after initial treatment in approximately one in four patients. A single-centre pilot study suggested that this could be reduced using ’follow-on’ rifaximin treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of rifaximin treatment in preventing recurrence. Methods A multisite, parallel group, randomised, placebo controlled trial recruiting patients aged ≥18 years immediately after resolution of CDI through treatment with metronidazole or vancomycin. Participants received either rifaximin 400mg three times a day for 2weeks, reduced to 200mg three times a day for a further 2weeks or identical placebo. The primary endpoint was recurrence of CDI within 12 weeks of trial entry. Results Between December 2012 and March 2016, 151 participants were randomised to either rifaximin or placebo. Primary outcome data were available on 130. Mean age was 71.9 years (SD 15.3). Recurrence within 12 weeks was 29.5% (18/61) among participants allocated to placebo compared with 15.9% (11/69) among those allocated to rifaximin, a difference between groups of 13.7% (95% CI −28.1% to 0.7%, p=0.06). The risk ratio was 0.54 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.05, p=0.07). During 6-month safety follow-up, nine participants died in each group (12%). Adverse event rates were similar between groups. Conclusion While ’follow-on’ rifaximin after CDI appeared to halve recurrence rate, we failed to reach our recruitment target in this group of frail elderly patients, so the estimated effect of rifaximin lacks precision. A meta-analysis including a previous trial suggests that rifaximin may be effective; however, further, larger confirmatory studies are needed.The trial was sponsored by the University of Nottingham, was coordinated from the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network