Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them. To evaluate the clinical... more
Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochran...
Research Interests: Information Systems, Oncology, Medicine, Library and Information Studies, Internal Medicine, and 10 moreRenal cell Carcinoma, Health Technology Assessment, Everolimus, Public health systems and services research, Randomized Controlled Trial, Sunitinib, Cabozantinib, Axitinib, Progression Free Survival, and hazard ratio
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted treatment.DesignSystematic review and network... more
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted treatment.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2018.ParticipantsPeople with amRCC requiring treatment after VEGF-targeted treatment.InterventionsAxitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib with everolimus, nivolumab, sorafenib and best supportive care (BSC).OutcomesPrimary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).ResultsTwelve studies were included (n=5144): five RCTs and seven observational studies. Lenvatinib with everolimus significantly increased OS and PFS over everolimus (HR 0.61, 95% Credi...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted treatment. Design Systematic review and... more
Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted treatment. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2018. Participants People with amRCC requiring treatment after VEGF-targeted treatment. Interventions Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib with everolimus, nivolumab, sorafenib and best supportive care (BSC). Outcomes Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). results Twelve studies were included (n=5144): five RCTs and seven observational studies. Lenvatinib with everolimus significantly increased OS and PFS over everolimus (HR 0.61, 95% Credible Interval [95%CrI]: 0.36 to 0.96 and 0.47, 95%CrI: 0.26 to 0.77, respectively) as did cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95%CrI: 0.53 to 0.82 and 0.51, 95%CrI: 0.41 to 0.63, respectively). This remained the case when observational evidence was included. Nivolumab also significantly improved OS versus everolimus (HR 0.74, 95%CrI: 0.57 to 0.93). OS sensitivity analysis, including observational studies, indicates everolimus being more effective than axitinib and sorafenib. However, inconsistency was identified in the OS sensitivity analysis. PFS sensitivity analysis suggests axitinib is more effective than everolimus, which may be more effective than sorafenib. The results for ORR supported the OS and PFS analyses.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Treating patients admitted to critical care with severe pneumonia requires timely intervention with an effective antibiotic. This reduces the risk of dying of pneumonia and minimises complications associated with a prolonged stay in... more
Treating patients admitted to critical care with severe pneumonia requires timely intervention with an effective antibiotic. This reduces the risk of dying of pneumonia and minimises complications associated with a prolonged stay in critical care. To compare the cost-effectiveness of meropenem 1 g/8 h with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g/8 h for treating pneumonia in UK critical care. A Markov model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam to treat severe pneumonia. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to address uncertainty in the model results. Cost of treating a patient with severe pneumonia was estimated as £19,026 with meropenem and £19,978 with piperacillin/tazobactam, respectively. QALYs gained were 4.768 with meropenem and 4.654 with piperacillin/tazobactam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be consistently less costly and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam. The additional efficacy of meropenem translates into more patients surviving critical care and leaving this high-cost service more quickly than if they had been treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. As meropenem is more effective and less expensive than piperacillin/tazobactam at treating patients with severe pneumonia, it is the dominant treatment option.
Research Interests: Enzyme Inhibitors, Sensitivity Analysis, Applied Economics, Critical Care, United Kingdom, and 18 moreHumans, Markov chains, Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Female, Pneumonia, Male, Cost effectiveness, Aged, Great Britain, Middle Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Quality adjusted life years, Public health systems and services research, Economic Models, Cost Benefit Analysis, Economic evaluation, Combination drug therapy, and Markov model
This study compared the cost-effectiveness of meropenem with that of imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in hospital intensive care in the UK. A Markov model was constructed to model lifetime costs and... more
This study compared the cost-effectiveness of meropenem with that of imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in hospital intensive care in the UK. A Markov model was constructed to model lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem and imipenem plus cilastatin for the treatment of severe infections in intensive care. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Estimated treatment costs for the patient cohort were pound 14,938 with meropenem and pound 15,585 with imipenem plus cilastatin. QALYs gained were 7,495 with meropenem and 7,413 with imipenem plus cilastatin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be significantly less costly (-pound 636.47, 95% CI -pound 132.33 to -pound 1,140.62) and more effective (0.084, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.144). Meropenem thus appears significantly more effective and less expensive than imipenem plus cilastatin and should therefore be considered the dominant treatment strategy.