RESUMEN
Trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are an important source of evidence in the assessment of health interventions. In these studies, cost and effectiveness outcomes are commonly measured at multiple time points, but some observations may be missing. Restricting the analysis to the participants with complete data can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. Methods, such as multiple imputation, have been recommended as they make better use of the data available and are valid under less restrictive Missing At Random (MAR) assumption. Linear mixed effects models (LMMs) offer a simple alternative to handle missing data under MAR without requiring imputations, and have not been very well explored in the CEA context. In this manuscript, we aim to familiarize readers with LMMs and demonstrate their implementation in CEA. We illustrate the approach on a randomized trial of antidepressants, and provide the implementation code in R and Stata. We hope that the more familiar statistical framework associated with LMMs, compared to other missing data approaches, will encourage their implementation and move practitioners away from inadequate methods.
Asunto(s)
Modelos Estadísticos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Modelos LinealesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a common lifelong condition that affects over 400 million people worldwide. The use of effective medications and active self-management can reduce the risk of serious complications. However, people often have concerns when starting new medications and face difficulties in taking their medications regularly. Support provided by brief messages delivered through mobile phone-based SMS text messages can be effective in some long-term conditions. We have identified promising behavior change techniques (BCTs) to promote medication adherence in this population via a systematic review and developed SMS text messages that target these BCTs. Feasibility work has shown that these messages have fidelity to intended BCTs, are acceptable to patients, and are successful in changing the intended determinants of medication adherence. We now plan to test this intervention on a larger scale in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial is to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for reducing cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes by comparing it with usual care. METHODS: The trial will be a 12-month, multicenter, individually randomized controlled trial in primary care and will recruit adults (aged ≥35 years) with type 2 diabetes in England. Consenting participants will be randomized to receive short SMS text messages intended to affect a change in medication adherence 3 to 4 times per week in addition to usual care. The aim is to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention when it is added to usual care. The primary clinical outcome will be a composite cardiovascular risk measure. Data including patient-reported measures will be collected at baseline, at 13 and 26 weeks, and at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. With 958 participants (479 in each group), the trial is powered at 92.5% to detect a 4-percentage point difference in cardiovascular risk. The analysis will follow a prespecified plan. A nested quantitative and qualitative process analysis will be used to examine the putative mechanisms of behavior change and wider contextual influences. A health economic analysis will be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: The trial has completed the recruitment phase and is in the follow-up phase. The publication of results is anticipated in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for people with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15952379; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15952379. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32918.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The SANAD II trial was a clinical trial designed to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for adults and children aged > 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. There are two main epilepsy types: focal and generalised. In focal epilepsy, seizures start at a single place in the brain (a focus), whereas in generalised epilepsy seizures start in both sides of the brain at the same time. Anti-seizure medications are the main treatment. For people with newly diagnosed epilepsy, the first anti-seizure medication should control the seizures as quickly as possible while avoiding side effects. The first-choice treatments are lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) for focal epilepsy and valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) for generalised epilepsy (however, the latter should be avoided in women who could become pregnant). A number of newer anti-seizure medications have been approved for NHS use, but it is unclear whether or not they should be used as first-line treatments. The SANAD II trial focused on the new medicines levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 1510 people aged ≥ 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy: 990 with focal epilepsy and 520 with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. FINDINGS: FOCAL EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam or zonisamide were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting treatment with lamotrigine, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% of those starting levetiracetam and 45% of those starting zonisamide. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that neither levetiracetam nor zonisamide is value for money for the NHS when compared with lamotrigine. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. FINDINGS: GENERALISED AND UNCLASSIFIABLE EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting valproate, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 37% of participants starting valproate and 42% of participants starting levetiracetam. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that levetiracetam is not good value for money for the NHS when compared with valproate. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. Importantly, our results will inform treatment decisions for women, who may choose a less effective treatment that is safer in pregnancy.
Asunto(s)
Epilepsias Parciales , Epilepsia , Preescolar , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Epilepsias Parciales/tratamiento farmacológico , Epilepsia/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Humanos , Lamotrigina/uso terapéutico , Levetiracetam/uso terapéutico , Calidad de Vida , Ácido Valproico/uso terapéutico , Zonisamida/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20â000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes/efectos adversos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Epilepsias Parciales/tratamiento farmacológico , Lamotrigina/uso terapéutico , Levetiracetam/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Zonisamida/uso terapéutico , Administración Oral , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20â000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Asunto(s)
Epilepsia Generalizada/tratamiento farmacológico , Levetiracetam/economía , Levetiracetam/uso terapéutico , Ácido Valproico/economía , Ácido Valproico/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anticonvulsivantes/economía , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Niño , Preescolar , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes , Epilepsia , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Carbamazepina/uso terapéutico , Niño , Preescolar , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Epilepsia/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Levetiracetam/uso terapéutico , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Medicina Estatal , Zonisamida/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are at risk of uveitis. The role of adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Inc., Ludwigshafen, Germany) in the management of uveitis in children needs to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX alone, with regard to controlling disease activity in refractory uveitis associated with JIA. DESIGN: This was a randomised (applying a ratio of 2 : 1 in favour of adalimumab), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre parallel-group trial with an integrated economic evaluation. A central web-based system used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. A cost-utility analysis based on visual acuity was conducted and a 10-year extrapolation by Markov modelling was also carried out. SETTING: The setting was tertiary care centres throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 2-18 years inclusive, with persistently active JIA-associated uveitis (despite optimised MTX treatment for at least 12 weeks). INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a stable dose of MTX and either adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing < 30 kg or 40 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing ≥ 30 kg by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks based on body weight) or a placebo (0.8 ml as appropriate according to body weight by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks) for up to 18 months. A follow-up appointment was arranged at 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - time to treatment failure [multicomponent score as defined by set criteria based on the Standardisation of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria]. Economic outcome - incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in England and Personal Social Services providers. Full details of secondary outcomes are provided in the study protocol. RESULTS: A total of 90 participants were randomised (adalimumab, n = 60; placebo, n = 30). There were 14 (23%) treatment failures in the adalimumab group and 17 (57%) in the placebo group. The analysis of the data from the double-blind phase of the trial showed that the hazard risk (HR) of treatment failure was significantly reduced, by 75%, for participants in the adalimumab group (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.51; p < 0.0001 from log-rank test). The cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus MTX was £129,025 per QALY gained. Adalimumab-treated participants had a much higher incidence of adverse and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab in combination with MTX is safe and effective in the management of JIA-associated uveitis. However, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is < 1% at the £30,000-per-QALY threshold. FUTURE WORK: A clinical trial is required to define the most effective time to stop therapy. Prognostic biomarkers of early and complete response should also be identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10065623 and European Clinical Trials Database number 2010-021141-41. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also funded by Arthritis Research UK (grant reference number 19612). Two strengths of adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml and 40 mg/0.8 ml) and a matching placebo were manufactured by AbbVie Inc. (the Marketing Authorisation holder) and supplied in bulk to the contracted distributor (Sharp Clinical Services, Crickhowell, UK) for distribution to trial centres.
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of the most common rheumatic diseases in children and young people, who are at risk of developing inflammation in an area of the eye called the uvea (called uveitis). The purpose of the study was to look at how effective the use of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is compared with using MTX alone to treat JIA-associated uveitis. A total of 90 children (aged 218 years) taking MTX with JIA-associated uveitis took part in the study. If the inflammation in a patient's eye or eyes was not getting better during the 18 months, the patient was told to stop taking the study drug. It was found that those patients who were taking placebo and MTX in the trial stopped taking the study drug sooner than those who were taking adalimumab and MTX. This means that adalimumab and MTX was better at treating uveitis than MTX alone. It was found that more patients taking adalimumab and MTX together either reduced or stopped taking topical steroids than the patients taking placebo and MTX. It was found that patients taking adalimumab and MTX together experienced more side effects than those taking placebo with MTX. However, these were expected based on what was already known about adalimumab's side effects. An economic evaluation was conducted to estimate whether or not adalimumab would represent value for money for the NHS for this condition. This included long-term effects based on information about patients' clarity of vision. The analysis showed that adalimumab may not be cost-effective, as the additional costs of treatment may not be justified by the benefits. The final results show that although adalimumab used in combination with MTX does help to treat patients with JIA and uveitis, it may not represent good value for the NHS.
Asunto(s)
Adalimumab/administración & dosificación , Antirreumáticos/administración & dosificación , Artritis Juvenil/complicaciones , Metotrexato/administración & dosificación , Uveítis/tratamiento farmacológico , Uveítis/etiología , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Método Doble Ciego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To measure stigma resulting from negative attitudes toward epilepsy in the United Kingdom (UK) population. METHODS: An online survey of a stratified quota sample of UK adults in July 2018. The primary outcome measure was the 46-item Attitudes and Beliefs about Living with Epilepsy (ABLE) scale, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Items on sociodemographic characteristics, experience of epilepsy, and knowledge of epilepsy were also included. Mean scores were calculated for the ABLE and subscales: risk and safety concerns, personal fear and social avoidance, work and role expectations, and negative stereotypes. Hierarchical regressions tested the association between mean ABLE and subscale scores with sociodemographic and epilepsy related factors. RESULTS: 4000 responded, 3875 responses were included in the analysis. Mean ABLE score was 2.28 (95% CI: 2.26-2.29) (1=no stigma, 5=high stigma). Subscales: risk and safety concerns 3.22 (95% CI: 3.20-3.25), personal fear and social avoidance 2.13 (95% CI: 2.11-2.16), work and role expectations 2.07 (95% CI: 2.05-2.09), and negative stereotypes 1.67 (95% CI: 1.65-1.69). Mean knowledge score was 78% (95% CI: 76.15-77.02). CONCLUSION: Findings of the first UK national survey of attitudes and beliefs about living with epilepsy suggest relatively low stigma among the sampled population. The subscale with the least stigma was negative stereotypes. Risk and safety concerns were associated with highest stigma. Improving public knowledge about epilepsy has potential to reduce stigma, however this may also raise risk and safety concerns. The results from this project could inform future work to improve awareness and understanding of epilepsy.
Asunto(s)
Epilepsia/epidemiología , Epilepsia/psicología , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Estigma Social , Adulto , Cultura , Miedo/psicología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Conducta Social , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Regulatory decisions may be enhanced by incorporating patient preferences for drug benefit and harms. This study demonstrates a method of weighting clinical evidence by patients' benefit-risk preferences. Preference weights, derived from discrete choice experiments, were applied to clinical trial data to estimate the expected utility of alternative drugs. In a case study, the rank ordering of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as indicated from clinical studies, was compared with ordering based on weighting clinical evidence by patients' preferences. A statistically significant change in rank ordering of AEDs was observed for women of childbearing potential who were prescribed monotherapy for generalized or unclassified epilepsy. Rank ordering inferred from trial data, valproate > topiramate > lamotrigine, was reversed. Modeling the expected utility of drugs might address the need to use more systematic, methodologically sound approaches to collect patient input that can further inform regulatory decision making.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes/administración & dosificación , Desarrollo de Medicamentos/métodos , Grupos Focales/métodos , Atención Dirigida al Paciente/métodos , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Investigación Cualitativa , Convulsiones/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
The cost-effectiveness of testing for multiple genes implicated in adverse drug reactions requires the simultaneous assessment of all actionable information, including future prescribing decisions based on incidental findings. We developed methodology for determining the value of pharmacogenetic panel tests, illustrated with a multigene panel, including HLA-A*31:01, HLA-B*15:02, HLA-B*57:01, HLA-B*58:01, HLA-B (158T), and HLA-DQB1 (126Q). If the findings for all alleles are acted upon, regardless of their individual cost-effectiveness, the HLA panel resulted in cost savings of £378 (US $491), and a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.0069. Based on a stratified analysis and compared with no testing, initial use of the panel was cost-effective in patients eligible for abacavir (HLA-B*57:01), carbamazepine (HLA-A*31:01), and clozapine (HLA-B (158T) and HLA-DQB1 (126Q)), but not for carbamazepine (HLA-B*15:02) or allopurinol (HLA-B*58:01). The methods presented allow for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of multiple-gene panels.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio/normas , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/diagnóstico , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/genética , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/economía , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/normas , Anticonvulsivantes/efectos adversos , Anticonvulsivantes/economía , Supresores de la Gota/efectos adversos , Supresores de la Gota/economía , Antígenos HLA-A/economía , Antígenos HLA-A/genética , Antígenos HLA-B/economía , Antígenos HLA-B/genética , HumanosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. METHODS: The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting.
Asunto(s)
Adalimumab/economía , Antirreumáticos/economía , Artritis Juvenil/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Metotrexato/economía , Uveítis/economía , Adalimumab/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Artritis Juvenil/tratamiento farmacológico , Niño , Preescolar , Ahorro de Costo , Estudios Cruzados , Método Doble Ciego , Costos de los Medicamentos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Metotrexato/uso terapéutico , Modelos Económicos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Medicina Estatal , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reino Unido , Uveítis/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether UK National Health Service (NHS) policies for orphan drugs, which permit funding of non-cost-effective treatments, reflect societal preferences. METHODS: We conducted person trade-off (PTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) among 3950 adults selected to be representative of the UK general population. Experimental design was informed by surveys of patients affected by rare diseases, their caregivers, health care staff, and policymakers. Societal preferences were estimated in relation to treating a common disease, increases in waiting lists, or filling of vacant NHS posts. Results of the DCE were applied to recently licensed orphan drugs. RESULTS: On the basis of equal cost, the majority of respondents to the PTO (54%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 50-59) chose to allocate funds equally between patients treated for rare diseases and those treated for common diseases, with 32% (95% CI 28-36) favoring treating rare diseases over treating common diseases (14%; 95% CI 11-17), which this reduced to 23% (95% CI 20-27) when rare disease treatments were 10 times more expensive. When framed differently, more respondents prioritized not increasing waiting list size (43%; 95% CI 39-48) than to treat rare disease patients (34%; 95% CI 30-38). DISCUSSION: The DCE indicated a greater preference for treating a common disease over a rare disease. Respondents agreed with five of 12 positive appraisal recommendations for orphan drugs, even if their list price was higher, but preferred the NHS not to fund the remainder. CONCLUSIONS: The general public does not value rarity as a sufficient reason to justify special consideration for additional NHS funding of orphan drugs. This has implications regarding the appropriateness of operating higher thresholds of cost-effectiveness.
Asunto(s)
Conducta de Elección , Análisis Costo-Beneficio/economía , Producción de Medicamentos sin Interés Comercial/economía , Medicina Estatal/economía , Política de Salud/economía , Humanos , Modelos Económicos , Enfermedades Raras/tratamiento farmacológico , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer diagnosis and staging can be difficult in 10-20% of patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) adds precise anatomical localisation to functional data. The use of PET/CT may add further value to the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental diagnostic accuracy and impact of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: A multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and clinical value study of PET/CT in suspected pancreatic malignancy. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: All patients to undergo PET/CT following standard diagnostic work-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Secondary outcomes were (1) changes in patients' diagnosis, staging and management as a result of PET/CT; (2) changes in the costs and effectiveness of patient management as a result of PET/CT; (3) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in chronic pancreatitis; (4) the identification of groups of patients who would benefit most from PET/CT; and (5) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in other pancreatic tumours. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, 589 patients with suspected pancreatic cancer underwent MDCT and PET/CT, with 550 patients having complete data and in-range PET/CT. Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 88.5% and 70.6%, respectively, for MDCT and 92.7% and 75.8%, respectively, for PET/CT. The maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax.) for a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was 7.5. PET/CT demonstrated a significant improvement in relative sensitivity (p = 0.01) and specificity (p = 0.023) compared with MDCT. Incremental likelihood ratios demonstrated that PET/CT significantly improved diagnostic accuracy in all scenarios (p < 0.0002). PET/CT correctly changed the staging of pancreatic cancer in 56 patients (p = 0.001). PET/CT influenced management in 250 (45%) patients. PET/CT stopped resection in 58 (20%) patients who were due to have surgery. The benefit of PET/CT was limited in patients with chronic pancreatitis or other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.0157 (95% confidence interval -0.0101 to 0.0430). In the base-case model PET/CT was seen to dominate MDCT alone and is thus highly likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS. PET/CT was seen to be most cost-effective for the subgroup of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer who were thought to be resectable. CONCLUSION: PET/CT provided a significant incremental diagnostic benefit in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and significantly influenced the staging and management of patients. PET/CT had limited utility in chronic pancreatitis and other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT is likely to be cost-effective at current reimbursement rates for PET/CT to the UK NHS. This was not a randomised controlled trial and therefore we do not have any information from patients who would have undergone MDCT only for comparison. In addition, there were issues in estimating costs for PET/CT. Future work should evaluate the role of PET/CT in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and prognosis and response to therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73852054 and UKCRN 8166. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/diagnóstico , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones/economía , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/diagnóstico por imagen , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Fluorodesoxiglucosa F18 , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Econométricos , Tomografía Computarizada Multidetector/economía , Tomografía Computarizada Multidetector/métodos , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Pancreatitis Crónica/diagnóstico , Pancreatitis Crónica/patología , Estudios Prospectivos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Medicina Estatal , Reino Unido , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Pharmacogenetic tests are being used increasingly to prevent rare and potentially life-threatening adverse drug reactions. For many tests, however, cost-effectiveness is hard to demonstrate, and with the exception of a few cases, widespread implementation remains a distant prospect. Many orphan drugs for rare diseases are also not cost effective but are nonetheless normally reimbursed. In this article, we argue that the health technology assessment of pharmacogenetic tests aimed to prevent rare but severe adverse drug reactions should be on a level playing field with orphan drugs. This is supported by a number of arguments, concerning the severity, rarity and iatrogenic nature of adverse drug reactions, the distribution of benefits and costs and societal preference towards prevention over treatment.
Asunto(s)
Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/genética , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/prevención & control , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/economía , Enfermedades Raras/genética , Enfermedades Raras/prevención & control , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/economía , Humanos , Enfermedades Raras/economíaRESUMEN
Background: Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce the risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients treated in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). However, it is unclear if they are cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Methods: Economic evaluation alongside the CATCH trial (ISRCTN34884569) to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline), heparin-bonded and standard polyurethane CVCs. The 6-month costs of CVCs and hospital admissions and visits were determined from administrative hospital data and case report forms. Results: BSIs were detected in 3.59% (18/502) of patients randomized to standard, 1.44% (7/486) to antibiotic and 3.42% (17/497) to heparin CVCs. Lengths of hospital stay did not differ between intervention groups. Total mean costs (95% confidence interval) were: £45,663 (£41,647-£50,009) for antibiotic, £42,065 (£38,322-£46,110) for heparin, and £44,503 (£40,619-£48,666) for standard CVCs. As heparin CVCs were not clinically effective at reducing BSI rate compared to standard CVCs, they were considered not to be cost-effective. The ICER for antibiotic vs. standard CVCs, of £54,057 per BSI avoided, was sensitive to the analytical time horizon. Conclusions: Substituting standard CVCs for antibiotic CVCs in PICUs will result in reduced occurrence of BSI but there is uncertainty as to whether this would be a cost-effective strategy for the NHS.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prescribing policy recommendations aimed at moving immunosuppressant prescribing for renal transplant patients from primary to secondary care may result in benefits of increased safety and reduced cost. However, there is little evidence of patients' preferences for receiving their immunosuppressant therapy from hospitals compared to community dispensing. The aim of this study was to elicit patient preferences for different service configurations focusing in particular on home delivery versus collection of medication from hospital. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 265 renal transplant patients in North Wales. Respondents were presented 18 pairwise choices, labelled as either home delivery or hospital collection, and described by the attributes: frequency of supply, waiting time (for delivery or collection) and method of ordering (provider contact, patient contact via phone, patient contact electronically). Data were analysed using a random-effects logit model and marginal rates of substitution calculated based on the waiting time attribute. RESULTS: A response rate of 63% was achieved, with 5332 usable observations from 150 respondents. Method of delivery (ß coefficient 1.21; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.38), frequency of supply (0.05; 0.03 to 0.08) waiting time (-0.00, -0.00 to -0.00), provider contact (desirable) (0.20; 0.12 to 0.27), patient contact by telephone (desirable) (0.09; 0.01 to 0.17) and patient contact electronically (undesirable) (-0.292; -0.37 to -0.21) were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Results indicate that patients are willing to increase waiting time by nearly 10 h to have a home delivery service. CONCLUSION: Patients indicate a clear preference for a home delivery service. They prefer providers to make contact when new immunosuppressant supplies are required and show preference against ordering medication electronically. A policy for secondary care prescribing and hospital collection of medicines does not align with this preference.
Asunto(s)
Conducta de Elección , Servicios Comunitarios de Farmacia/provisión & distribución , Inmunosupresores/provisión & distribución , Trasplante de Riñón , Prioridad del Paciente , Servicio de Farmacia en Hospital/provisión & distribución , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/administración & dosificación , Trasplante de Riñón/efectos adversos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Servicio de Farmacia en Hospital/métodos , Proyectos Piloto , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Gales/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Objective: To determine whether prospective testing for HLA-B*58:01, as a strategy to prevent serious adverse reactions to allopurinol in patients with gout, is cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis for the association of HLA-B*58:01 with cutaneous and hypersensitivity adverse drug reactions informed a decision analytic and Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes associated with testing vs standard care (with febuxostat prescribed for patients who test positive). Scenario analyses assessed alternative treatment assumptions and patient populations. Results: The number of patients needed to test to prevent one case of adverse drug reaction was 11 286 (95% central range (CR): 2573, 53 594). Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were small, £103 (95% CR: £98, £106) and 0.0023 (95% CR: -0.0006, 0.0055), respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £44 954 per QALY gained. The probability of testing being cost-effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was 0.25. Reduced costs of testing or febuxostat resulted in an ICER below £30 000 per QALY gained. The ICER for patients with chronic renal insufficiency was £38 478 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Routine testing for HLA-B*58:01 in order to reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions in patients being prescribed allopurinol for gout is unlikely to be cost-effective in the UK; however testing is expected to become cost-effective with reductions in the cost of genotyping, and with the future availability of cheaper, generic febuxostat.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Técnicas de Genotipaje/economía , Gota/genética , Antígenos HLA-B/análisis , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/economía , Adulto , Alopurinol/efectos adversos , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/economía , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/prevención & control , Femenino , Técnicas de Genotipaje/métodos , Gota/tratamiento farmacológico , Supresores de la Gota/efectos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/métodos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetics offers the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying individuals who are at greater risk of harm from certain medicines. Routine adoption of pharmacogenetic tests requires evidence of their cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The present review aims to systematically review published economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic tests that aim to prevent or reduce the incidence of ADRs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic tests aimed to reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Literature was searched using Embase, MEDLINE and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database with search terms relating to pharmacogenetic testing, adverse drug reactions, economic evaluations and pharmaceuticals. Titles were screened independently by two reviewers. Articles deemed to meet the inclusion criteria were screened independently on abstract, and full texts reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 852 articles, of which 47 met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence supporting the cost effectiveness of testing for HLA-B*57:01 (prior to abacavir), HLA-B*15:02 and HLA-A*31:01 (prior to carbamazepine), HLA-B*58:01 (prior to allopurinol) and CYP2C19 (prior to clopidogrel treatment). Economic evidence was inconclusive with respect to TPMT (prior to 6-mercaptoputine, azathioprine and cisplatin therapy), CYP2C9 and VKORC1 (to inform genotype-guided dosing of coumarin derivatives), MTHFR (prior to methotrexate treatment) and factor V Leiden testing (prior to oral contraception). Testing for A1555G is not cost effective before prescribing aminoglycosides. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review identified robust evidence of the cost effectiveness of genotyping prior to treatment with a number of common drugs. However, further analyses and (or) availability of robust clinical evidence is necessary to make recommendations for others.
Asunto(s)
Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/prevención & control , Farmacogenética/métodos , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/métodos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/economía , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Genotipo , Humanos , Incidencia , Farmacogenética/economía , Pruebas de Farmacogenómica/economíaRESUMEN
Trial-based economic evaluations are an important aspect of health technology assessment. The availability of patient-level data coupled with unbiased estimates of clinical outcomes means that randomised controlled trials are effective vehicles for the generation of economic data. However there are methodological challenges to trial-based evaluations, including the collection of reliable data on resource use and cost, choice of health outcome measure, calculating minimally important differences, dealing with missing data, extrapolating outcomes and costs over time and the analysis of multinational trials. This review focuses on the state of the art of selective elements regarding the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations. The limitations of existing approaches are detailed and novel methods introduced. The review is internationally relevant but with a focus towards practice in the UK.