Romiplostim and Eltrombopag for Immune Thrombocytopenia: Methods for Indirect Comparison

Objectives: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) causes increased platelet destruction and suboptimal platelet production, increasing risk of bleeding. This analysis uses a Bayesian metaregression model to indirectly compare effectiveness of the thrombopoietin mimetics romiplostim and eltrombopag for increasing platelet counts, and contrasts the results with those of non-Bayesian approaches. Methods: Ten databases were searched during 2010. Placebo-controlled trials of 24 weeks’ duration were included. An indirect comparison was undertaken using Bayesian metaregression, which includes all trials in a single model. This was compared with previous analyses in which data for each intervention were combined using simple pooling, logistic regression or meta-analysis, followed by indirect comparison of pooled values using the Bucher method. Results: Two trials of romiplostim and one of eltrombopag were included. The indirect evidence suggests romiplostim significantly improves overall platelet response compared with eltrombopag. Bayesian metaregression gave an odds ratio (OR) for eltrombopag versus romiplostim of 0.11 (95 percent credible interval 0.02–0.66); p values and Bayesian posterior probabilities ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 for all analyses. There was no significant difference in durable platelet response in any of the analyses, although the direction of effect favored romiplostim (OR = 0.15; 95 percent credible interval, 0.01–1.88); p values and Bayesian posterior probabilities ranged from 0.08 to 0.40 across analyses. Results were relatively consistent between analyses. Conclusions:Bayesian metaregression generated similar results to other indirect comparison methods, and may be considered the most robust as it incorporates all data in a single model and accounts appropriately for parameter uncertainty

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98). Conclusions: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim

Cost-effectiveness of low-level heat wrap therapy for low back pain

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a new heat wrap therapy for low back pain compared to paracetamol and ibuprofen from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).METHODS: We evaluated cost-effectiveness using data from a phase III trial comparing the three therapies in 371 patients aged 18 to 55 years presenting with acute uncomplicated low back pain. The primary effectiveness measure used was successful treatment, defined as both clinically meaningful pain relief and clinically meaningful reduction in disability. We conducted a simple evaluation using NHS prescription costs and a modeled extrapolation including the costs of further treatment and consultations for patients treated unsuccessfully or with adverse events. Uncertainty was addressed using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses.RESULTS: Successful treatment was reported by 57% of patients treated with heat wrap therapy, 26% treated with paracetamol and 18% treated with ibuprofen (P &lt; 0.05 for heat wrap vs. both other groups). NHS prescription cost per patient was estimated to be 1.35 pounds Sterling for heat wrap therapy, 0.26 pounds Sterling for paracetamol, and 0.28 pounds Sterling for ibuprofen and cost per successful treatment was 3.52 pounds Sterling for heat wrap therapy compared to paracetamol, and 2.72 pounds Sterling compared to ibuprofen. In the modeled extrapolation, NHS cost per patient was 27.77 pounds Sterling for heat wrap therapy, 34.20 pounds Sterling for paracetamol, and 36.04 pounds Sterling for ibuprofen. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the findings were robust to plausible changes in data and assumptions.CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluation of this study suggests that the NHS cost of introducing heat wrap therapy in place of oral analgesics would be modest and heat wrap therapy might potentially reduce the total cost of managing episodes of lower back pain.</p

Choice of NSAID and management strategy in rheumatoid arthritis and osteo-arthritis : the impact on costs and outcomes in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are an effective therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, they are associated with significant adverse effects, the management of which imposes additional costs on the healthcare system. Prescribing NSAIDs which have a lower risk of major adverse effects as the first-line NSAID for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis may be expected to lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes and reduce overall treatment costs. This analysis examines data from a published randomised controlled trial of 5 NSAIDs to explore these hypotheses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from a clinical trial comparing 5 NSAIDs were combined with published cost data to construct 2 clinical decision models, reflecting alternative approaches to the management of major and minor adverse effects in the UK. INTERVENTIONS: The 5 NSAIDs evaluated in the analysis were nabumetone, diclofenac, ibuprofen, piroxicam and naproxen, although only the results for ibuprofen and nabumetone are reported. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The total cost of care per patient receiving nabumetone was estimated to be between 25 pounds sterling (Pound) and 41 Pounds more expensive than ibuprofen. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients, there were between 690 and 821 more major adverse effects using ibuprofen than nabumetone. The cost per life-year gained (LYG) from using nabumetone rather than ibuprofen ranged between 1880 Pounds and 2517 Pounds (1995 values), depending upon the management of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that: (i) prescribing the newer, currently more expensive, NSAIDs will not necessarily lead to cost savings; (ii) the management of adverse effects can have a significant impact on costs; and (iii) the additional cost may be justifiable in terms of the mortality and morbidity gains associated with the new lower-risk NSAIDs.</p

Health-Related Quality of Life and Cost Impact of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in a UK Primary Care Setting

Objectives: To identify the impact of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), time off work and the utilisation and cost of health services. Design: A case-control study was undertaken matching patients with IBS and controls. Quality-of-life information was collected using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36) health survey, EuroQOL instrument (EQ-5D) and IBS Quality-of-Life (IBS-QOL) instruments. Data on time off work was also collected. National Health Service (NHS) resource use in primary and secondary care was estimated by review of general practitioner (GP) and hospital records over a 12-month period. Setting: Recruitment was from six GPs' surgeries in the Trent Region of the United Kingdom. Participants: 161 patients with IBS, as defined by the Rome Criteria I were recruited. These were compared with 213 controls matched for age, sex and social characteristics. Main outcome measures: SF-36 and EQ-5D scores; mean number of days off work; mean NHS costs per person during the 12-month study period. Results: Patients with IBS had considerably lower HR-QOL than controls. They scored worse in all dimensions of the SF-36 and the EQ-5D and they had more time off work. On average patients with IBS cost the NHS Lstg 123 (95% confidence interval: Lstg 35 to Lstg 221, 1999 values) more per year than individuals in the control group (p = 0.04). Conclusions: IBS affects patients through reduced quality of life, more time off work and greater healthcare utilisation than a control group of patients without IBS. The difference in quality of life was pronounced and unusual in that it was influential in every dimension of both the SF-36 and the EQ-5D.Cost utility, Pharmacoeconomics

Choice of NSAID and Management Strategy in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis: The Impact on Costs and Outcomes in the UK

Objective: Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are an effective therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, they are associated with significant adverse effects, the management of which imposes additional costs on the healthcare system. Prescribing NSAIDs which have a lower risk of major adverse effects as the first-line NSAID for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis may be expected to lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes and reduce overall treatment costs. This analysis examines data from a published randomised controlled trial of 5 NSAIDs to explore these hypotheses. Design and Setting: Data from a clinical trial comparing 5 NSAIDs were combined with published cost data to construct 2 clinical decision models, reflecting alternative approaches to the management of major and minor adverse effects in the UK. Interventions: The 5 NSAIDs evaluated in the analysis were nabumetone, diclofenac, ibuprofen, piroxicam and naproxen, although only the results for ibuprofen and nabumetone are reported. Main outcome measures and results: The total cost of care per patient receiving nabumetone was estimated to be between 25 pounds sterling (Lstg ) and Lstg 41 more expensive than ibuprofen. In a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 patients, there were between 690 and 821 more major adverse effects using ibuprofen than nabumetone. The cost per life-year gained (LYG) from using nabumetone rather than ibuprofen ranged between Lstg 1880 and Lstg 2517 (1995 values), depending upon the management of adverse effects. Conclusions: These results indicate that: (i) prescribing the newer, currently more expensive, NSAIDs will not necessarily lead to cost savings; (ii) the management of adverse effects can have a significant impact on costs; and (iii) the additional cost may be justifiable in terms of the mortality and morbidity gains associated with the new lower-risk NSAIDs.Pharmacoeconomics, Nonsteroidal-antiinflammatories, Ibuprofen, Rheumatoid-arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Cost-analysis, Nabumetone, Nonsteroidal-antiinflammatories, Mortality

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modeled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20K per quality-adjusted life year gained and also using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30K and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price