Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. REVIEW METHODS: In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. RESULTS: An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. LIMITATIONS: The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab and tocilizumab - with or without methotrexate where indicated) for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA excluded).Data sources: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and DARE were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methods: Systematic reviews of clinical-effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision analytic model was developed to compare estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.Results: Four placebo-controlled RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the clinical-effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar with fewer disease flares and greater proportions with ACR Pedi 50 and 70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARD. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that generally ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality of life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate was £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per QALY, respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.Limitations: The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.Conclusions: Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA, and an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow- are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes where evidence is lacking are also required.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. <br/

An observational study to assess if automated diabetic retinopathy image assessment software can replace one or more steps of manual imaging grading and to determine their cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening in England involves labour-intensive manual grading of retinal images. Automated retinal image analysis systems (ARIASs) may offer an alternative to manual grading. OBJECTIVES: To determine the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of ARIASs to replace level 1 human graders or pre-screen with ARIASs in the NHS diabetic eye screening programme (DESP). To examine technical issues associated with implementation. DESIGN: Observational retrospective measurement comparison study with a real-time evaluation of technical issues and a decision-analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. SETTING: A NHS DESP. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive diabetic patients who attended a routine annual NHS DESP visit. INTERVENTIONS: Retinal images were manually graded and processed by three ARIASs: iGradingM (version 1.1; originally Medalytix Group Ltd, Manchester, UK, but purchased by Digital Healthcare, Cambridge, UK, at the initiation of the study, purchased in turn by EMIS Health, Leeds, UK, after conclusion of the study), Retmarker (version 0.8.2, Retmarker Ltd, Coimbra, Portugal) and EyeArt (Eyenuk Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, USA). The final manual grade was used as the reference standard. Arbitration on a subset of discrepancies between manual grading and the use of an ARIAS by a reading centre masked to all grading was used to create a reference standard manual grade modified by arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and likelihood ratios) and diagnostic accuracy [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] of ARIASs. A secondary analysis explored the influence of camera type and patients' ethnicity, age and sex on screening performance. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome identified. RESULTS: A total of 20,258 patients with 102,856 images were entered into the study. The sensitivity point estimates of the ARIASs were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (95% CI 94.2% to 95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.6%) for referable retinopathy and 99.6% (95% CI 97.0% to 99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; and Retmarker 73.0% (95% CI 72.0% to 74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (95% CI 83.6% to 86.2%) for referable retinopathy and 97.9% (95% CI 94.9 to 99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either 'disease' or 'ungradable', limiting further iGradingM analysis. The sensitivity and false-positive rates for EyeArt were not affected by ethnicity, sex or camera type but sensitivity declined marginally with increasing patient age. The screening performance of Retmarker appeared to vary with patient's age, ethnicity and camera type. Both EyeArt and Retmarker were cost saving relative to manual grading either as a replacement for level 1 human grading or used prior to level 1 human grading, although the latter was less cost-effective. A threshold analysis testing the highest ARIAS cost per patient before which ARIASs became more expensive per appropriate outcome than human grading, when used to replace level 1 grader, was Retmarker £3.82 and EyeArt £2.71 per patient. LIMITATIONS: The non-randomised study design limited the health economic analysis but the same retinal images were processed by all ARIASs in this measurement comparison study. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy and false-positive rates (compared with human graders as reference standard) and appear to be cost-effective alternatives to a purely manual grading approach. Future work is required to develop technical specifications to optimise deployment and address potential governance issues. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, a Fight for Sight Grant (Hirsch grant award) and the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology

Authorities in the NHS Membership and learning needs

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:q96/33146 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Identification of patients with potential palliative care needs: A systematic review of screening tools in primary care

Background: Despite increasing evidence of the benefits of early access to palliative care, many patients do not receive palliative care in a timely manner. A systematic approach in primary care can facilitate earlier identification of patients with potential palliative care needs and prompt further assessment. Aim: To identify existing screening tools for identification of patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary healthcare and evaluate their accuracy. Design: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019111568). Data sources: Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2019 Results: From 4,127 unique articles screened, 25 reported the use or development of 10 screening tools. Most tools use prediction of death and/or deterioration as a proxy for the identification of people with potential palliative care needs. The tools are based on a wide range of general and disease-specific indicators. The accuracy of five tools was assessed in eight studies; these tools differed significantly in their ability to identify patients with potential palliative care needs with sensitivity ranging from 3% to 94% and specificity ranging from 26% to 99%. Conclusion: The ability of current screening tools to identify patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary care is limited. Further research is needed to identify standardised screening processes that are based not only on predicting mortality and deterioration but also on anticipating the palliative care needs and predicting the rate and course of functional decline. This would prompt a comprehensive assessment to identify and meet their needs on time