Health technology assessment : HTA
-
Health Technol Assess · Jul 2006
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter StudyPressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation.
To determine differences between alternating pressure overlays and alternating pressure replacement mattresses with respect to the development of new pressure ulcers, healing of existing pressure ulcers, patient acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the different pressure-relieving surfaces. Also to investigate the specific additional impact of pressure ulcers on patients' well-being. ⋯ There is no difference between alternating pressure mattress replacements and overlays in terms of the proportion of patients developing new pressure ulcers; however, alternating pressure mattress replacements are more likely to be cost-saving. The results suggest that when renewing alternating pressure surfaces or ordering equipment within a rental contract, mattress replacements should be specified; however, overlays are acceptable if no replacement mattress is available. Similarly, patient preferences can be supported, without any great increase in risk, if individual patients request an overlay rather than a replacement mattress. Further research could include a randomised controlled trial comparing alternating pressure mattress replacements and high-specification foam mattresses in patients at moderate to high risk; an accurate costing study to understand better how much pressure ulcers cost health and social services in the UK; and trials in higher risk groups of patients. Also future trials should measure time to ulceration as the primary end-point, since this is more informative economically and possibly also from a patient and clinical perspective.
-
Health Technol Assess · Jul 2006
ReviewA systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH), dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX) and atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents (<18 years of age) diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (including hyperkinetic disorder). ⋯ Drug therapy seems to be superior to no drug therapy, no significant differences between the various drugs in terms of efficacy or side effects were found, mainly owing to lack of evidence, and the additional benefits from behavioural therapy (in combination with drug therapy) are uncertain. Given the lack of evidence for any differences in effectiveness between the drugs, the economic model tended to be driven by drug costs, which differed considerably. Future trials examining MPH, DEX and ATX should include the assessment of tolerability and safety as a priority. Longer term follow-up of individuals participating in trials could further inform policy makers and health professionals. Such data could potentially distinguish between these drugs in a clinically useful way. In addition, research examining whether somatic complaints are actually related to drug treatment or to the disorder itself would be informative.
-
Health Technol Assess · Jul 2006
ReviewThe clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease: a systematic review.
The aim of this review is to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) in the treatment of symptomatic Gaucher's disease. ⋯ Although ERT for treating the 'average' Gaucher's disease patient exceeds the normal upper threshold for cost-effectiveness seen in NHS policy decisions by over ten-fold, some argue that since orphan drug legislation encouraged the manufacture of Cerezyme, and Gaucher's disease can be defined as an orphan disease, the NHS has little option but to provide it, despite its great expense. More information is required before the generalisability of the findings can be determined. Although data from the UK have been used wherever possible, these were very thin indeed. Nonetheless, even large errors in estimates of the distribution of genotype, genotype--phenotype associations, effectiveness and numbers of patients will not reduce the ICER to anywhere near the upper level of treatments usually considered cost-effective. Further research could help to clarify the many uncertainties that exist. However, although doing so will be of clinical interest, it is questionable whether, within the current pricing environment, such research would have any substantive impact on policy decisions. It is highly improbable that, whatever the findings of such research, the ICER could be brought down by the orders of magnitude required to make ERT an efficient use of health service resources. (The possible exception to this would be investigating the most efficient alternative treatment strategies for using ERT in a paediatric population only.) Moreover, if under equity considerations for orphan diseases the NHS feels it is important to provide this drug, regardless of its cost-effectiveness, then refining the precision of the ICER estimate also becomes superfluous.