Health technology assessment : HTA
-
Health Technol Assess · Apr 2006
Review Randomized Controlled TrialRandomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial).
To establish the cost-effectiveness of surgery and sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. ⋯ Standard surgical treatment of varicose veins by saphenofemoral ligation, stripping and multiple phlebectomies is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for varicose veins, with an ICER well below the threshold normally considered appropriate for the funding of treatments within the NHS. Injection sclerotherapy also appears to be cost-effective, but produces less overall benefit, with a higher ICER than surgery for patients with superficial venous reflux. In minor varicose veins without reflux, sclerotherapy is likely to provide a small average benefit with acceptable cost-effectiveness. Research is needed into methods for accurate and acceptable utility evaluations for conditions with relatively minor effect on HRQoL and also for a validated and standardised method of classification for varicose veins.
-
Health Technol Assess · Apr 2006
Review Comparative StudyScreening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Thrombosis: Risk and Economic Assessment of Thrombophilia Screening (TREATS) study.
To assess the risk of clinical complications associated with thrombophilia in three high-risk patient groups: women using oral oestrogen preparations, women during pregnancy and patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic treatments in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with thrombophilia during pregnancy and VTE in patients with thrombophilia, undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of universal and selective VTE history-based screening for thrombophilia compared with no screening in the three high-risk patient groups. ⋯ Thrombophilia is associated with increased risks of VTE in women taking oral oestrogen preparations and patients undergoing major elective orthopaedic surgery, and of VTE and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with thrombophilia during pregnancy. There is considerable difference in the magnitude of the risks among different patient groups with different thrombophilic defects. In women who are on combined oral contraceptives, the OR of VTE among those who are carriers of the FVL mutation was 15.62 (95% confidence interval 8.66 to 28.15). However, in view of the prevalence of thrombophilia and the low prevalence of VTE in non-users of combined oral contraceptives, the absolute risk remains low. Significant risks for VTE and adverse pregnancy outcomes have been established with individual thrombophilic defects. Thrombophilic defects including FVL, high plasma factor VIIIc levels and prothrombin G20210A are associated with the occurrence of postoperative VTE in elective hip or knee replacement therapy. These associations are observed in patients who were given preoperative thromboprophylaxis and are, therefore, of clinical significance. Universal thrombophilia screening in women prior to prescribing oral oestrogen preparations, in women during pregnancy and in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery is not supported by current evidence. The findings from this study show that selective screening based on prior VTE history is more cost-effective than universal screening. Large prospective studies should be undertaken to refine the risks and establish the associations of thrombophilias with VTE among hormone users and in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. The relative value of a thrombophilia screening programme to other healthcare programmes needs to be established.
-
Health Technol Assess · Apr 2006
ReviewA series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected diabetic foot ulcers.
To review systematically the evidence on the performance of diagnostic tests used to identify infection in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and of interventions to treat infected DFUs. To use estimates derived from the systematic reviews to create a decision analytic model in order to identify the most effective method of diagnosing and treating infection and to identify areas of research that would lead to large reductions in clinical uncertainty. ⋯ The available evidence is too weak to be able to draw reliable implications for practice. This means that, in terms of diagnosis, infection in DFUs cannot be reliably identified using clinical assessment. This has implications for determining which patients need formal diagnostic testing for infection, on whether empirical treatment with antibiotics (before the results of diagnostic tests are available) leads to better outcomes, and on identifying the optimal methods of diagnostic testing. With respect to treatment, it is not known whether treatment with systemic or local antibiotics leads to better outcomes or whether any particular agent is more effective. Limited evidence suggests that both G-CSF and cadexomer iodine dressings may be less expensive than 'standard' care, that ampicillin/sulbactam may be less costly than imipenem/cilastatin, and that an unlicensed cream (pexiganan) may be as effective as oral ofloxacin. Further research is needed to ascertain the characteristics of infection in people with DFUs that influence healing and amputation outcomes, to determine whether detecting infection prior to treatment offers any benefit over empirical therapy, and to establish the most effective and cost-effective methods for detecting infection, as well as the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial interventions for DFU infection.
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2006
ReviewTopotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. ⋯ For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2006
ReviewSurveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling.
To assess what is known about the effectiveness, safety, affordability, cost-effectiveness and organisational impact of endoscopic surveillance in preventing morbidity and mortality from adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. In addition, to identify important areas of uncertainty in current knowledge for these programmes and to identify areas for further research. ⋯ The systematic review concludes that there is insufficient evidence available to assess the clinical effectiveness of surveillance programmes of Barrett's oesophagus. There are numerous gaps in the evidence, of which the lack of RCT data is the major one. The expert workshop reflected these gaps in the range of topics raised as important in answering the question of the effectiveness of surveillance. Previous models of cost-effectiveness have most recently shown that surveillance programmes either do more harm than good compared with no surveillance or are unlikely to be cost-effective at usual levels of willingness to pay. Our cost--utility model has shown that, across a range of values for the various parameters that have been chosen to reflect uncertainty in the inputs, it is likely that surveillance programmes do more harm than good -- costing more and conferring lower quality of life than no surveillance. Probabilistic analysis shows that, in most cases, surveillance does more harm and costs more than no surveillance. It is unlikely, but still possible, that surveillance may prove to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, however, shows that surveillance is unlikely to be cost-effective at either the 'usual' level of willingness to pay ( pound 20,000-30,000 per QALY) or at much higher levels. The expected value of perfect information at the population level is pound 6.5 million. Future research should target both the overall effectiveness of surveillance and the individual elements that contribute to a surveillance programme, particularly the performance of the test and the effectiveness of treatment for both Barrett's oesophagus and ACO. In addition, of particular importance is the clarification of the natural history of Barrett's oesophagus.