scholarly journals Register or electronic health records enriched randomized pragmatic trials: The future of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trials?

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joakim Ramsberg ◽  
Martin Neovius
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Economic Outcomes ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Electronic Health

For many interventions in health care, there is limited information on efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness even long after they have been implemented. To decide between treatments, the randomized controlled trial (RCT) provides the strongest evidence. This creates a problem because RCTs are very expensive, logistically challenging and generally cumbersome. Observational studies are inexpensive, but create weaker evidence. The pragmatic randomized trial, enriched with routinely collected register or electronic health record  (EHR) data may be a solution to this dilemma since they are much less costly than traditional RCTs but create much stronger evidence than observational studies. Pragmatic randomized trials mean that patients in routine care are randomly allocated to alternative treatments. The outcome of the treatment is then followed up in existing registers with patient data. This means that it is possible to 1) follow patients in the normal care situation - unlike the often artificial situation in the traditional RCT, 2) that the costs are low, even for large studies and 3) that a broad spectrum of outcomes, including both health and economic outcomes, can be collected. Pragmatic randomized trials using register or EHR data in principle lend themselves well to health economic evaluations. We have identified a number of such trials in the literature. Very few, however, include economic outcomes.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
Lorraine Green ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Joy Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Initiatives to reduce length of stay in acute hospital settings: a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhanced recovery programmes

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Paton ◽  
Duncan Chambers ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Alison Eastwood ◽  
Dawn Craig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Hospital ◽  
Economic Evaluations

BackgroundThere has been growing interest in the NHS over recent years in the use of enhanced recovery programmes for elective surgery to deliver productivity gains through reduced length of stay, fewer postoperative complications, reduced readmissions and improved patient outcomes.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings. To identify and critically describe key factors associated with successful adoption, implementation and sustainability of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings. To summarise existing knowledge about patient experience of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings.Data sourcesEight databases, including Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, International Prospective of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and MEDLINE, were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies.Review methodsSystematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), economic evaluations, and UK NHS cost analysis studies were included if they evaluated the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on any health- and cost-related outcomes. Eligible studies included patients undergoing elective surgery in an acute hospital setting. Implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were also eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment of systematic reviews, RCTs and economic evaluations was based on existing Centre for Reviews and Dissemination processes. All stages of the review process were performed by one researcher and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The type and range of evidence precluded meta-analysis and we therefore performed a narrative synthesis, differentiating between clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, implementation case studies and evidence on patient experience.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews of varying quality were included in this report. Twelve additional RCTs were included; all were considered at high risk of bias. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. Fourteen innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in NHS settings were identified and provide descriptions of factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Ten relevant economic evaluations were identified evaluating costs and outcomes over short time horizons. Despite the plethora of studies, robust evidence was sparse. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5–3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reported reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified.LimitationsFindings relating to other clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, implementation and patient experience were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.ConclusionsThere is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes can realise reductions and cost savings will depend on length of stays achieved under their existing care pathway. RCTs comparing an enhanced recovery programme with conventional care continue to be conducted and published. Further single-centre RCTs of this kind are not a priority. Rather, what is needed is improved collection and reporting of how enhanced recovery programmes are implemented, resourced and experienced in NHS settings.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

scholarly journals TRAPEZE: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy with zoledronic acid, strontium-89, or both, in men with bony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas James ◽  
Sarah Pirrie ◽  
Ann Pope ◽  
Darren Barton ◽  
Lazaros Andronis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Randomised Controlled

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document