Health technology assessment : HTA
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2007
ReviewSystematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and cetuximab in the treatment of individuals with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). ⋯ The trials indicate that bevacizumab in combination with 5-FU/FA, and bevacizumab in combination with IFL, is clinically effective in comparison to standard chemotherapy options for the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC. The health economic analysis suggests that the marginal cost-utility of bevacizumab plus IFL versus IFL is unlikely to be better than pound 62,857 per QALY gained, and the marginal cost-utility of bevacizumab plus 5-FU/FA versus 5-FU/FA is unlikely to be better than pound 88,658 per QALY gained. There is no direct evidence to demonstrate whether cetuximab in combination with irinotecan improves health-related quality of life or OS in comparison to active/best supportive care or oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/FA, although the evidence on tumour response rates suggests that cetuximab plus irinotecan has some clinical activity. While it is difficult to suggest whether cetuximab represents value for money, indirect comparisons suggest that the incremental cost-utility of cetuximab plus irinotecan is unlikely to be better than pound 30,000 per QALY gained. This review highlights a number of areas for further research, including clarifying the true impact of first-line bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan and/or infusional 5-FU/FA, without subsequent bevacizumab treatment following disease progression, on OS in patients with metastatic CRC who are representative of the typical population of CRC patients in England and Wales. Further research concerning the impact of therapies on health-related quality of life is essential.
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2007
ReviewMethadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) for the management of opioid-dependent individuals. ⋯ Both flexible-dose MMT and BMT are more clinically effective and more cost-effective than no drug therapy in dependent opiate users. In direct comparison, a flexible dosing strategy with MMT was found be somewhat more effective in maintaining individuals in treatment than flexible-dose BMT and therefore associated with a slightly higher health gain and lower costs. However, this needs to be balanced by the more recent experience of clinicians in the use of buprenorphine, the possible risk of higher mortality of MMT and individual opiate-dependent users' preferences. Future research should be directed towards the safety and effectiveness of MMT and BMT; potential safety concerns regarding methadone and buprenorphine, specifically mortality and key drug interactions; efficacy of substitution medications (in particular patient subgroups, such as within the criminal justice system, or within young people); and uncertainties in cost-effectiveness identified by current economic models.
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2007
Review Multicenter StudyEpidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection.
To investigate epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic aspects of chlamydia screening in non-genitourinary medicine settings. ⋯ Proactive screening for chlamydia in women and men using home-collected specimens was feasible and acceptable. Chlamydia prevalence rates in men and women in the general population are similar. Nucleic acid amplification tests can be used on first-catch urine specimens and vulvovaginal swabs. The administrative costs of proactive screening were similar to those for opportunistic screening. Using empirical estimates of screening uptake and incidence of complications, screening was not cost-effective.
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2007
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyExercise Evaluation Randomised Trial (EXERT): a randomised trial comparing GP referral for leisure centre-based exercise, community-based walking and advice only.
To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a leisure centre-based exercise programme, an instructor-led walking programme and advice-only in patients referred for exercise by their GPs. ⋯ The results of this trial suggest that referral for tailored advice, supported by written materials, including details of locally available facilities, supplemented by detailed assessments may be effective in increasing physical activity. The inclusion of supervised exercise classes or walks as a formal component of the scheme may not be more effective than the provision of information about their availability. On cost-effectiveness grounds, assessment and advice alone from an exercise specialist may be appropriate to initiate action in the first instance. Subsidised schemes may be best concentrated on patients at higher absolute risk, or with specific conditions for which particular programmes may be beneficial. Walking appears to be as effective as leisure centre classes and is cheaper. Efforts should be directed towards maintenance of increased activity, with proven measures such as telephone support. Further research should include an updated meta-analysis of published exercise interventions using the standardised mean difference approach.