Health technology assessment : HTA
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2004
ReviewThe clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic analysis.
To review the evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra, an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra), for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. ⋯ Anakinra can be considered modestly effective in the treatment of RA based on ACR response, although no conclusion can currently be made on the effect of treatment on disease progression. Adjusted indirect comparison suggests that anakinra may be significantly less effective at relieving the clinical signs and symptoms of RA, as measured by the ACR response criteria, than tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors all used in combination with methotrexate, although these results should be interpreted with caution. The BRAM produces an ICER for anakinra substantially higher than those for infliximab and etanercept. However, patients may respond to anakinra when they have not responded to other TNF inhibitors, as these agents have a different mechanism of action. Thus, anakinra may produce a clinically significant and important improvement in some patients that they could not otherwise have achieved. Further research would be valuable in the following areas: RCTs to evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost of anakinra over the longer term; comparative trials of anakinra with other DMARDs and biological modifiers; assessment of the role of anakinra in the treatment of patients who have failed to achieve a benefit while taking infliximab or etanercept; assessment on the impact of DMARDs and anakinra on joint replacement, mortality and quality of life; controlled clinical trials of combination therapy with two anticytokines; investigations into newer biological therapies; and the utility of radiographic outcomes in clinical trials of RA.
-
Health Technol Assess · Apr 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialA multi-centre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery.
To compare the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with or without stenting in patients with single-vessel disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). ⋯ The study found no evidence that MIDCAB was more effective than PTCA. The procedure costs of MIDCAB were observed to be considerably higher than those of PTCA. Given these findings, it is unlikely that MIDCAB represents a cost-effective use of resources in the reference population. Recent advances in cardiac surgery mean that surgeons now tend to carry out off-pump bypass grafting via a sternotomy instead of MIDCAB. At the same time, cardiologists are treating more patients with multi-vessel disease by PTCA. Future primary research should focus on this comparison. Other small trials of PTCA versus MIDCAB have now finished and a more conclusive answer to the original objective could be provided by a systematic review.
-
Health Technol Assess · Apr 2004
Review Comparative StudyClinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
To evaluate the use of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, in terms of both clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. ⋯ The clinical evidence available showed that glitazones can reduce glycosylated haemoglobin; however there were no peer-reviewed data available on the long-term effects of their use or any prospective RCTs found comparing pioglitazone with rosiglitazone. No published economic studies on either pioglitazone or rosiglitazone were found, although sensitivity analyses undertaken by the assessment team suggest that the cost per QALY of rosiglitazone is most sensitive to dosage and treatment effect. It is suggested that research already undertaken in this area should be published, preferably in peer-reviewed journals. Direct head-to-head comparisons of the glitazones in combination with metformin or sulfonylurea would be helpful. The current licence arrangements do not allow for routine use of the glitazones in triple oral combination therapy or in combination with insulin. Evidence is emerging of use of the glitazones within such combinations; therefore, prospective RCTs would be useful. These studies could examine short-term transition strategies and longer term management. The impact of the glitazones in delaying transfer to insulin and the impact on long-term outcomes should also be considered for investigation.
-
Health Technol Assess · Apr 2004
ReviewInvolving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach.
To look at the processes and outcomes of identification and prioritisation in both national and regional R&D programmes in health and elsewhere, drawing on experiences of success and failure. Also to identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, meaningful participation by consumers in research identification and prioritisation. ⋯ Productive methods for involving consumers require appropriate skills, resources and time to develop and follow appropriate working practices. The more that consumers are involved in determining how this is to be done, the more research programmes will learn from consumers and about how to work with them. Further success might be expected if research programmes embarking on collaborations approach well-networked consumers and provide them with information, resources and support to empower them in key roles for consulting their peers and prioritising topics. To be worthwhile, consultations should engage consumer groups directly and repeatedly in facilitated debate; when discussing health services research, more resources and time are required if consumers are drawn from groups whose main focus of interest is not health. These barriers can largely be overcome with good leadership, purposeful outreach to consumers, investing time and effort in good communication, training and support and thereby building good working relationships and building on experience. Organised consumer groups capable of identifying research priorities also need to find ways of introducing their ideas into research programmes. Further research is suggested to develop and evaluate different training methods, information and education and other support for consumers and those wishing to involve them; to address the barriers to consumers' ideas influencing research agendas; and to carry out prospective comparative studies of different methods for involving consumers. Research about collective decision-making would also be further advanced by addressing the processes and outcomes of consensus development that involves consumers.
-
Health Technol Assess · Mar 2004
Review Comparative StudyThe use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis.
To address the structural issues relating to mortality and quality of life (QoL) effects and to identify data on the general pattern of QoL of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients through a restructured and enhanced version of the Birmingham Preliminary Model (BPM). ⋯ The main achievement of this work was to bring about a more realistic modelling of real-life clinical pathways and events, as it has developed from the BPM to the BRAM. This has been brought about by overcoming structural and data limitations. In addition, the modelling approach reflected in the BRAM is applicable to other chronic conditions, especially those where a sequential approach to therapeutic options exists. The model has been successfully restructured so that different sequences of treatment can readily be considered, including the sequence that best represents current clinical practice in the UK. In addition, the flexibility inherent in using a modelling approach to consider these health policy questions has been demonstrated. One of the key uncertainties that can now be explored concerns the impact of new drugs on disease progression. Current evidence on this is weak, but should new agents demonstrate such a benefit then the BRAM may be a suitable vehicle through which to investigate the costs and full effects. Inevitably, there remain problems and limitations with the BRAM, but these are almost entirely data limitations. As data on these issues become available the BRAM provides a convenient tool through which reanalysis might be undertaken.