Rare disease prevention and treatment:The need for a level playing field

Pharmacogenetic tests are being used increasingly to prevent rare and potentially life-threatening adverse drug reactions. For many tests, however, cost–effectiveness is hard to demonstrate, and with the exception of a few cases, widespread implementation remains a distant prospect. Many orphan drugs for rare diseases are also not cost effective but are nonetheless normally reimbursed. In this article, we argue that the health technology assessment of pharmacogenetic tests aimed to prevent rare but severe adverse drug reactions should be on a level playing field with orphan drugs. This is supported by a number of arguments, concerning the severity, rarity and iatrogenic nature of adverse drug reactions, the distribution of benefits and costs and societal preference towards prevention over treatment. </jats:p

Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are an important source of evidence in the assessment of health interventions. In these studies, cost and effectiveness outcomes are commonly measured at multiple time points, but some observations may be missing. Restricting the analysis to the participants with complete data can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. Methods, such as multiple imputation, have been recommended as they make better use of the data available and are valid under less restrictive Missing At Random (MAR) assumption. Linear mixed effects models (LMMs) offer a simple alternative to handle missing data under MAR without requiring imputations, and have not been very well explored in the CEA context. In this manuscript, we aim to familiarize readers with LMMs and demonstrate their implementation in CEA. We illustrate the approach on a randomized trial of antidepressants, and provide the implementation code in R and Stata. We hope that the more familiar statistical framework associated with LMMs, compared to other missing data approaches, will encourage their implementation and move practitioners away from inadequate methods

Cost effectiveness analysis of HLA-B*58:01 genotyping prior to initiation of allopurinol for gout

Objective. To determine whether prospective testing forHLA-B*58:01, as a strategy to prevent seriousadverse reactions to allopurinol in patients with gout, is cost-effective from the perspective of the NationalHealth Service in the UK. Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis for the association ofHLA-B*58:01with cutaneous andhypersensitivity adverse drug reactions informed a decision analytic and Markov model to estimate lifetimecosts and outcomes associated with testingvsstandard care (with febuxostat prescribed for patients whotest positive). Scenario analyses assessed alternative treatment assumptions and patient populations. Results. The number of patients needed to test to prevent one case of adverse drug reaction was 11 286(95% central range (CR): 2573, 53 594). Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were small, £103(95% CR: £98, £106) and 0.0023 (95% CR: 0.0006, 0.0055), respectively, resulting in an incrementalcost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £44 954 per QALY gained. The probability of testing being cost-effectiveat a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was 0.25. Reduced costs of testing or febuxostat resulted in an ICERbelow £30 000 per QALY gained. The ICER for patients with chronic renal insufficiency was £38 478 perQALY gained. Conclusion. Routine testing forHLA-B*58:01in order to reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions inpatients being prescribed allopurinol for gout is unlikely to be cost-effective in the UK; however testing isexpected to become cost-effective with reductions in the cost of genotyping, and with the future avail-ability of cheaper, generic febuxosta

Cost-effectiveness of paediatric central venous catheters in the UK:A secondary publication from the CATCH clinical trial

Background: Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce the risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients treated in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). However, it is unclear if they are cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.Methods: Economic evaluation alongside the CATCH trial (ISRCTN34884569) to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline), heparin-bonded and standard polyurethane CVCs. The 6-month costs of CVCs and hospital admissions and visits were determined from administrative hospital data and case report forms.Results: BSIs were detected in 3.59% (18/502) of patients randomized to standard, 1.44% (7/486) to antibiotic and 3.42% (17/497) to heparin CVCs. Lengths of hospital stay did not differ between intervention groups. Total mean costs (95% confidence interval) were: £45,663 (£41,647–£50,009) for antibiotic, £42,065 (£38,322–£46,110) for heparin, and £44,503 (£40,619–£48,666) for standard CVCs. As heparin CVCs were not clinically effective at reducing BSI rate compared to standard CVCs, they were considered not to be cost-effective. The ICER for antibiotic vs. standard CVCs, of £54,057 per BSI avoided, was sensitive to the analytical time horizon.Conclusions: Substituting standard CVCs for antibiotic CVCs in PICUs will result in reduced occurrence of BSI but there is uncertainty as to whether this would be a cost-effective strategy for the NHS

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs

BackgroundLevetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.DesignTwo pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.SettingOutpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.ParticipantsThose aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.InterventionsParticipants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.ResultsFocal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.LimitationsThe SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.Future workSANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.ConclusionsFocal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information