scholarly journals Study of the use of antidepressants for depression in dementia: the HTA-SADD trial – a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Banerjee ◽  
J Hellier ◽  
R Romeo ◽  
M Dewey ◽  
M Knapp ◽  
...  

ObjectiveDepression is common in dementia, causing considerable distress and other negative impacts. Treating it is a clinical priority, but the evidence base is sparse and equivocal. This trial aimed to determine clinical effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine in reducing depression 13 weeks post randomisation compared with placebo.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine with 13- and 39-week follow-up.SettingNine English old-age psychiatry services.ParticipantsA pragmatic trial.Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD), depression (4+ weeks) and Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score of 8+.Exclusions: clinically too critical (e.g. suicide risk); contraindication to medication; taking antidepressants; in another trial; and having no carer.Interventions(1) Sertraline; (2) mirtazapine; and (3) placebo, all with normal care. Target doses: 150 mg of sertraline or 45 mg of mirtazapine daily.Main outcome measuresOutcome: CSDD score.Randomisation: Allocated 1 : 1 : 1 through Trials Unit, independently of trial team. Stratified block randomisation by centre, with randomly varying block sizes; computer-generated randomisation.Blinding: Double blind: medication and placebo identical for each antidepressant. Referring clinicians, research workers, participants and pharmacies were blind. Statisticians blind until analyses completed.ResultsNumbers randomised: 326 participants randomised (111 placebo, 107 sertraline and 108 mirtazapine).Outcome: Differences in CSDD at 13 weeks from an adjusted linear-mixed model: mean difference (95% CI) placebo–sertraline 1.17 (−0.23 to 2.78;p = 0.102); placebo–mirtazapine 0.01 (−1.37 to 1.38;p = 0.991); and mirtazapine–sertraline 1.16 (−0.27 to 2.60;p = 0.112).Harms: Placebo group had fewer adverse reactions (29/111, 26%) than sertraline (46/107, 43%) or mirtazapine (44/108, 41%;p = 0.017); 39-week mortality equal, five deaths in each group.ConclusionsThis is a trial with negative findings but important clinical implications. The data suggest that the antidepressants tested, given with normal care, are not clinically effective (compared with placebo) for clinically significant depression in AD. This implies a need to change current practice of antidepressants being the first-line treatment of depression in AD. From the data generated we formulated the following recommendations for future work. (1) The secondary analyses presented here suggest that there would be value in carrying out a placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine in the management of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia. (2) A conclusion from this study is that it remains both ethical and essential for trials of new medication for depression in dementia to have a placebo arm. (3) Further research is required to evaluate the impact that treatments for depression in people with dementia can have on their carers not only in terms of any impacts on their quality of life, but also the time they spend care-giving. (4) There is a need for research into alternative biological and psychological therapies for depression in dementia. These could include evaluations of new classes of antidepressants (such as venlafaxine) or antidementia medication (e.g. cholinesterase inhibitors). (5) Research is needed to investigate the natural history of depression in dementia in the community when patients are not referred to secondary care services. (6) Further work is needed to investigate the cost modelling results in this rich data set, investigating carer burden and possible moderators to the treatment effects. (7) There is scope for reanalysis of the primary outcome in terms of carer and participant CSDD results.Trial registrationEudraCT Number – 2006–000105–38.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 7. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (62) ◽  
pp. 1-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark T Drayson ◽  
Stella Bowcock ◽  
Tim Planche ◽  
Gulnaz Iqbal ◽  
Guy Pratt ◽  
...  

Background Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as Clostridium difficile. There is a need to assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibacterial prophylaxis against any risks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial. Objectives To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. Design Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio. Setting A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Participants A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma. Intervention Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond. Results In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, n = 489; placebo, n = 488). A total of 134 (27%) events (febrile episodes, n = 119; deaths, n = 15) occurred in the placebo arm and 95 (19%) events (febrile episodes, n = 91; deaths, n = 4) occurred in the levofloxacin arm; the hazard ratio for time to first event (febrile episode or death) within the first 12 weeks was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.002). Levofloxacin also reduced other infections (144 infections from 116 patients) compared with placebo (179 infections from 133 patients; p-trend of 0.06). There was no difference in new acquisitions of C. difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Gram-negative organisms when assessed up to 16 weeks. Levofloxacin produced slightly higher quality-adjusted life-year gains over 16 weeks, but had associated higher costs for health resource use. With a median follow-up of 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.94). Limitations Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04). Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976. Funding details This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-214
Author(s):  
Somen Saha ◽  
Priya Kotwani ◽  
Apurvakumar Pandya ◽  
Deepak Saxena ◽  
Tapasvi Puwar ◽  
...  

The Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, is implementing a program named Technology for Community Health Operation or TeCHO+ addressing state’s priority health issues. This program envisages replacing the existing mother and child tracking system or e-Mamta application in the state. This program is based on ImTeCHO—Innovative Mobile Technology for Community Health Operations—which was piloted in Jhagadia, Bharuch district of Gujarat in 2013. The program showed improvements not only in terms of coverage of maternal and newborn care packages averting malnutrition but also was cost-effective. This paper details the protocol for health technology assessment to assess the impact of TeCHO+ program on data quality, improvement in service delivery coverage, reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as assess the cost-effectiveness. The study will be conducted in five districts of the state. A mixed-method approach will be adopted. Data will be validated in a phased manner over a period of 3 years along with an assessment of key outcome indicators. Additionally, key informant interviews will be conducted and cost data will be gathered to perform cost-effectiveness analysis. The study will inform policymakers about the impact of TeCHO+ program on quality, access and cost-effectiveness of healthcare services.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas James ◽  
Sarah Pirrie ◽  
Ann Pope ◽  
Darren Barton ◽  
Lazaros Andronis ◽  
...  

BackgroundBony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis and high morbidity. TRAPEZE was a two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial of zoledronic acid (ZA) and strontium-89 (Sr-89), each combined with docetaxel. All have palliative benefits, are used to control bone symptoms and are used with docetaxel to prolong survival. ZA, approved on the basis of reducing skeletal-related events (SREs), is commonly combined with docetaxel in practice, although evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Sr-89, approved for controlling metastatic pain and reducing need for subsequent bone treatments, is generally palliatively used in patients unfit for chemotherapy. Phase II analysis confirmed the safety and feasibility of combining these agents. TRAPEZE aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each agent.MethodsPatients were randomised to receive six cycles of docetaxel plus prednisolone: alone, with ZA, with a single Sr-89 dose after cycle 6, or with both. Primary outcomes were clinical progression-free survival (CPFS: time to pain progression, SRE or death) and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes were SRE-free interval (SREFI), total SREs, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Log-rank test and Cox regression modelling were used to determine clinical effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the NHS perspective and expressed as cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An additional analysis was carried out for ZA to reflect the availability of generic ZA.ResultsPatients: 757 randomised (median age 68.7 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale score 0, 40%; 1, 52%; 2, 8%; prior radiotherapy, 45%); median prostate-specific antigen 143.78 ng/ml (interquartile range 50.8–353.9 ng/ml). Stratified log-rank analysis of CPFS was statistically non-significant for either agent (Sr-89,p = 0.11; ZA,p = 0.45). Cox regression analysis adjusted for stratification variables showed CPFS benefit for Sr-89 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.845, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.99;p = 0.036] and confirmed no effect of ZA (p = 0.46). ZA showed a significant SREFI effect (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93;p = 0.008). Neither agent affected OS (Sr-89,p = 0.74; ZA,p = 0.91), but both increased total cost (vs. no ZA and no Sr-89, respectively); decreased post-trial therapies partly offset costs [net difference: Sr-89 £1341; proprietary ZA (Zometa®, East Hanover, NJ, USA) £1319; generic ZA £251]. QoL was maintained in all trial arms; Sr-89 (0.08 additional QALYs) and ZA (0.03 additional QALYs) showed slight improvements. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Sr-89 was £16,590, with £42,047 per QALY for Zometa and £8005 per QALY for generic ZA.ConclusionStrontium-89 improved CPFS, but not OS. ZA did not improve CPFS or OS but significantly improved SREFI, mostly post progression, suggesting a role as post-chemotherapy maintenance therapy. QoL was well maintained in all treatment arms, with differing patterns of care resulting from the effects of Sr-89 on time to progression and ZA on SREFI and total SREs. The addition of Sr-89 resulted in additional cost and a small positive increase in QALYs, with an ICER below the £20,000 ceiling per QALY. The additional costs and small positive QALY changes in favour of ZA resulted in ICERs of £42,047 (Zometa) and £8005 for the generic alternative; thus, generic ZA represents a cost-effective option. Additional analyses on the basis of data from the Hospital Episode Statistics data set would allow corroborating the findings of this study. Further research into the use of ZA (and other bone-targeting therapies) with newer prostate cancer therapies would be desirable.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12808747.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m512
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Peter Davidson ◽  
Rosie Martin

The studyHewlett S, Almeida C, Ambler N, et al. Reducing arthritis fatigue impact: two-year randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural approaches by rheumatology teams (RAFT). Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:465-72.Hewlett S, Almeida C, Ambler N, et al. Group cognitive behavioural programme to reduce the impact of rheumatoid arthritis fatigue: the RAFT RCT with economic and qualitative evaluations. Health Technol Assess 2019;23:57.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 11/112/01).To read the full NIHR Signal, go to: https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000860/group-cognitive-behavioural-courses-may-reduce-fatigue-from-rheumatoid-arthritis


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Komal Shah ◽  
Priya Kotwani ◽  
Somen Saha

Abstract Background: HAIs impart a huge clinical and economic burden in India. Healthcare worker’s compliance to hand hygiene protocol can play an important role in preventing the transmission of cross-infection and thus reducing the HAIs. Over last few years, there has been a wide use of ultraviolate (UV) based fluorescent markers for assessing quality of hand hygiene. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) study will be conducted with the aim to identify low cost, easy and feasible strategy having potential to get integrated in the current health system to deal with issue of HAI in ICU settings. Methods: The study will be conducted in three phases. The impact of innovation on hand hygiene compliance will be assessed quantitatively by undertaking meta-analysis of secondary literature on UV based imaging tool in improving hand hygiene compliance in ICUs. Following this, the feasibility of using this innovation in developing country like India will be assessed. Decision Analytic modelling will be conducted for cost-effectiveness analysis using health systems perspective. Cost per ICU stay (day) and QALY gained will be calculated and ICER will be reported to comment on the cost-effectiveness of the innovation. Discussion: The HTA study will provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of UV light based imaging device in reduction of HAIs. The results of this HTA study will generate evidence for the decision makers for its incorporation in public healthcare system of India. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered in Prospero (Prospero Id: CRD42018108960)


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Komal Shah ◽  
Priya Kotwani ◽  
Somen Saha

Abstract Background: HAIs impart a huge clinical and economic burden in India. Healthcare worker’s compliance to hand hygiene protocol can play an important role in preventing the transmission of cross-infection and thus reducing the HAIs. Over last few years, there has been a wide use of ultraviolate (UV) based fluorescent markers for assessing quality of hand hygiene. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) study will be conducted with the aim to identify low cost, easy and feasible strategy having potential to get integrated in the current health system to deal with issue of HAI in ICU settings.Methods: The study will be conducted in three phases. The impact of innovation on hand hygiene compliance will be assessed quantitatively by undertaking meta-analysis of secondary literature on UV based imaging tool in improving hand hygiene compliance in ICUs. Following this, the feasibility of using this innovation in developing country like India will be assessed. Decision Analytic modelling will be conducted for cost-effectiveness analysis using health systems perspective. Cost per ICU stay (day) and QALY gained will be calculated and ICER will be reported to comment on the cost-effectiveness of the innovation.Discussion: The HTA study will provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of UV light based imaging device in reduction of HAIs. The results of this HTA study will generate evidence for the decision makers for its incorporation in public healthcare system of India.Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered in Prospero (Prospero Id: CRD42018108960)


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athimalaipet V Ramanan ◽  
Andrew D Dick ◽  
Ashley P Jones ◽  
Dyfrig A Hughes ◽  
Andrew McKay ◽  
...  

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 70-71
Author(s):  
Roxana Di Mauro ◽  
Francesco Faggiano ◽  
Martina Andellini ◽  
Pietro Derrico ◽  
Matteo Ritrovato

IntroductionA health technology assessment (HTA) process to evaluate the best intensive care ventilator manufacturers has been carried out in different pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) of Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital (OPBG). The purpose of this study is to determine: (i) the most relevant features of a ventilator to be considered between different manufacturers, and (ii) the methodology to conduct the assessment to support the decision-making process about the choice to adopt the suitable technology for OPBG.MethodsThe decision-oriented HTA method (Do-HTA), developed by the HTA unit of OPBG, was applied to conduct the assessment. Do-HTA involves the integration of the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) CoreModel and the Analytic Hierarchy Process with the support of an informatics tool. It provides the definition and numerical evaluation of assessment parameters to evaluate the performance of technologies. A literature review involving ICU professionals was used to define and weight the assessment elements on clinical, technical, organizational, economic, and safety domains. In particular, a subgroup of these domains has been included in a checklist for the comparative evaluation of different ventilator models, each of which was tested in three independent runs performed in three different ICUs.ResultsResults show that safety and clinical effectiveness had highest the impact within the evaluation, followed by organizational, technical and economic aspects. A percentage value per each ventilator has been assigned, representing the global performances regarding the assessment elements.ConclusionsThis study presents and discusses the benefits and drawbacks of innovative features of ventilators, all characteristics to be taken into account during the evaluation process and a methodology to conduct it. The project identified the best performing ventilator model through a collective decision, giving a reliable recommendation to the Hospital Decision Makers.


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l1029
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Vaughan Thomas ◽  
Rosie Martin

The study FOCUS Trial Collaboration. Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393:256-74. The study was funded by the UK Stroke Association and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme project number 13/04/30. To read the full NIHR Signal, go to: https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000729/a-commonly-used-antidepressant-doesnt-improve-recovery-after-stroke


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document