Health technology assessment : HTA
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2008
ReviewSystematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease.
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, in different patient groups, of the use of 64-slice or higher computed tomography (CT) angiography, instead of invasive coronary angiography (CA), for diagnosing people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and assessing people with known CAD. ⋯ The main value of 64-slice CT may at present be to rule out significant CAD. It is unlikely to replace CA in assessment for revascularisation of patients, particularly as angiography and angioplasty are often done on the same occasion. Further research is needed into the marginal advantages and costs of 256-slice machines compared with 64-slice CT, the usefulness of 64-slice CT in people with suspected acute coronary syndrome, the potential of multislice computed tomography to examine plaque morphology, the role of CT in identifying patients suitable for CABG, and the concerns raised about repetitive use, or use of 64-slice or higher CT angiography in younger individuals or women of childbearing age.
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2008
Review Meta AnalysisEzetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe as a combination therapy or monotherapy for the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia in the UK. ⋯ The short-term RCT clinical evidence demonstrated that ezetimibe was effective in reducing LDL-c when administered as monotherapy or in combination with a statin. However, when used as a monotherapy, ezetimibe is less effective than statins in lowering LDL-c. Given the limitations in the effectiveness data, there is great uncertainty in the economic results. These suggest that ezetimibe could be a cost-effective treatment for individuals with high baseline LDL-c values, for patients with diabetes and for individuals with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Long-term clinical outcome studies are needed to allow more precise cost-effectiveness estimates to be calculated.
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2008
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative StudyStepped treatment of older adults on laxatives. The STOOL trial.
To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bulk-forming, stimulant and osmotic laxatives, and also of adding a second type of laxative agent in the treatment of patients whose constipation is not resolved by a single agent. Additionally, to define the meaning of constipation in older people from the perspective of GPs and older patients, and to investigate the use of prescribed and non-prescribed treatments for constipation in older people together with their adherence to prescribed treatments. ⋯ There is little shared understanding between patients and professionals about 'normal' bowel function with little consensus in general practice of the optimum management strategies for chronic constipation and the most effective strategies to use. Chronic constipation is seen as less important than other conditions prevalent in general practice (e.g. diabetes) because it is not an agreed management target within national frameworks. Consequently, practitioners had little interest in constipation as a research topic. Patient preferences and the absence of patient equipoise formed an enormous barrier to the recruitment of patients in the implementation of this trial. Studies are needed to investigate different methods of recruitment within the constraints of current ethical guidelines on 'opting in' and to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment to complex trials in general. Patient preference trials and natural cohort observational studies are also needed to investigate the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of different laxatives and treatment strategies in the management of chronic constipation.
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2008
Review Meta AnalysisSystematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in children under the age of 12 years.
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone and ICS used in combination with a long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) in the treatment of chronic asthma in children aged under 12 years. ⋯ The limited evidence available indicates that there are no consistent significant differences in effectiveness between the three ICS licensed for use in children at either low or high dose. BDP CFC-propelled products are often the cheapest ICS currently available at both low and high dose, and may remain so even when CFC-propelled products are excluded. Exclusion of CFC-propelled products increases the mean annual cost of all budesonide (BUD) and BDP, while the overall cost differences between the comparators diminish. There is very limited evidence available for the efficacy and safety of ICS and LABAs in children. From this limited evidence, there appear to be no significant clinical differences in effects between the use of a combination inhaler versus the same drugs in separate inhalers. There is a lack of evidence comparing ICS at a higher dose with ICS and LABA in combination and comparing the combination products with each other. In the absence of any evidence concerning the effectiveness of ICS at higher dose with ICS and LABA, a cost-consequence analysis gives mixed results. There are potential cost savings with the use of combination inhalers compared to separate inhalers. At present prices, the BUD/FF combination is more expensive than those containing FP/SAL, but it is not known whether there are clinically significant differences between them. A scoping review is required to assess the requirements for additional primary research on the clinical effectiveness of treatment for asthma in children under 5 years old. Such a review could also usefully include all treatment options, pharmacological and non-pharmacological, for asthma. A direct head-to-head trial that compares the two combination therapies of FP/SAL and BUD/FF is warranted, and it is important to assess whether the addition of a LABA to a lower dose of ICS could potentially be as effective as an increased dose of ICS alone, but also be steroid sparing. There is also a need for the long-term adverse events associated with ICS use to be assessed systematically. Future trials of treatment for chronic asthma in children should aim to standardise further the way in which outcome measures are defined. There should be a greater focus on patient-centred outcomes to provide a more meaningful estimation of the impact of treatment on asthma control. Methods of reporting also require standardisation.
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2008
Randomized Controlled TrialA prospective randomised comparison of minor surgery in primary and secondary care. The MiSTIC trial.
To determine whether there is equivalence in the competence of GPs and hospital doctors to perform a range of elective minor surgical procedures, in terms of the safety, quality and cost of care. ⋯ The quality of minor surgery carried out in general practice is not as high as that carried out in hospital, using surgical quality as the primary outcome, although the difference is not large. Patients are more satisfied if their procedure is performed in primary care, largely because of convenience. However, there are clear deficiencies in GPs' ability to recognise malignant lesions, and there may be differences in completeness of excision when compared with hospital doctors. The safety of patients is of paramount importance and this study does not demonstrate that minor surgery carried out in primary care is safe as it is currently practised. There are several alternative models of minor surgery provision worthy of consideration, including ones based in primary care that require all excised tissue to be sent for histological examination, or that require further training of GPs to undertake the necessary work. The results of this study suggest that a hospital-based service is more cost-effective. It must be concluded that it is unsafe to leave minor surgery in the hands of doctors who have never been trained to do it. Further work is required to determine GPs' management of a range of skin conditions (including potentially life-threatening malignancies), rather than just their recognition of them. Further economic modelling work is required to look at the potential costs of training sufficient numbers of GPs and GPs with special interests to meet the demand for minor surgery safely in primary care, and of the alternative of transferring minor surgery large-scale to the hospital sector. Different models of provision need thorough testing before widespread introduction.