Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children. Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people. Data sources: Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation. Review methods: Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway. Results: Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks’ follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE’s usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted. Limitations: The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children. Conclusions: The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of suspected coronary artery disease

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This systematic review summarized recent evidence pertaining to the clinical effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). If CTA proves to be a successful diagnostic performance measure, it could prevent the use of invasive diagnostic procedures in some patients. This would provide multiple health and cost benefits, particularly for under resourced areas where invasive coronary angiography is not always available.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic method of literature searching and selection was employed with searches limited to December 2006 to March 2009. Included studies were quality assessed using National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) diagnostic levels of evidence and a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. Individual and pooled diagnostic performance measures were calculated using standard meta-analytic techniques at the patient, vessel and segment level. A positive result was defined as greater than or equal to 50% stenosis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review examining 3,674 patients. The primary meta-analysis at the patient-level indicated a sensitivity of 98.2% and specificity of 81.6%. The median (range) positive predictive value (PPV) was 90.5% (76%-100%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 99.0% (83%-100%). In all vessels, the pooled sensitivity was 94.9%, specificity 89.5%, and median (range) PPV 75.0% (53%-95%) and NPV 99.0% (93%-100%). At the individual artery level, overall diagnostic accuracy appeared to be slightly higher in the left main coronary artery and slightly lower in the left anterior descending and circumflex artery. In all segments, the sensitivity was 91.3%, specificity 94.0% and median (range) PPV 69.0% (44%-86%) and NPV 99.0% (98%-100%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The high sensitivity indicates that CTA can effectively identify the majority of patients with significant coronary artery stenosis. The high NPV at the patient, vessel and segment level establishes CTA as an effective non-invasive alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for the exclusion of stenosis.</p

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/

Resisting the screening imperative: patienthood, populations and politics in prostate cancer detection technologies for the UK

The introduction of mass screening programmes in the UK has been controversial. It is instructive to examine medical conditions for which screening has been actively considered but not introduced, such as prostate cancer. Incidence of the disease has escalated during the last 20 years, partly due to the upsurge in use of PSA (prostate-specific antigen) detection technology. The controversy is moving into a new phase, associated with the development of new molecular genetic biomarkers and tests derived from genome-association studies. The paper outlines the most recent scientific and technological developments for the three types of detection technology – PSA, genetic, and genomic. Applying concepts of risk, technology governance and technology expectations, it is shown that central public health governance actors continue to resist the tidal wave of new technologies through a variety of increasingly diverse governance modes. In the case of PSA, a governance trend moving beyond ‘responsibilisation’ to citizen rights is shown, whereas in the case of genetic tests and genomic risk profiling, state public health agencies are shown to be engaging in a form of technology expectation management, as it responds to a new marketplace of private commercial testing and mediatised science-based visions of future healthcare

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss

Objective: Recent technological advances have led to a rapid increase in alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids. The aim was to systematically review the existing evidence to assess the effectiveness of alternative listening devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing loss. Design: A systematic search strategy of the scientific literature was employed, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Study sample: Eleven studies met eligibility for inclusion: two studies evaluated personal sound amplification products, and nine studies assessed remote microphone systems (frequency modulation, Bluetooth, wireless). Results: The evidence in this review suggests that alternative listening devices improve behavioural measures of speech intelligibility relative to unaided and/or aided conditions. Evidence for whether alternative listening devices improve self-reported outcomes is inconsistent. The evidence was judged to be of poor to good quality and subject to bias due to limitations in study design. Conclusions: Our overall recommendation is that high-quality evidence (i.e. randomised controlled trials) is required to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative listening devices. Such evidence is not currently available and is necessary to guide healthcare commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults with hearing loss