An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis
Health Technology Assessment
SE, et al. An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, metaanalysis and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(7). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch ) and Current Contents / Clinical
... ents / Clinical Medicine. ii NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care. The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' . The HTA programme is needs led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of projects. First is the commissioned route. Suggestions for research are actively sought from people working in the NHS, from the public and consumer groups and from professional bodies such as royal colleges and NHS trusts. These suggestions are carefully prioritised by panels of independent experts (including NHS service users). The HTA programme then commissions the research by competitive tender. Second, the HTA programme provides grants for clinical trials for researchers who identify research questions. These are assessed for importance to patients and the NHS, and scientific rigour. Third, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA programme commissions bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy-makers. TARs bring together evidence on the value of specific technologies. Some HTA research projects, including TARs, may take only months, others need several years. They can cost from as little as £40,000 to over £1 million, and may involve synthesising existing evidence, undertaking a trial, or other research collecting new data to answer a research problem. The final reports from HTA projects are peer reviewed by a number of independent expert referees before publication in the widely read journal series Health Technology Assessment. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA journal series Reports are published in the HTA journal series if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Abstract An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis Background: Sepsis is a syndrome characterised by a systemic inflammatory response to infection that leads to rapid acute organ failure and potentially rapid decline to death. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), a blood product derived from human donor blood, has been proposed as an adjuvant therapy for sepsis. Objectives: To describe current practice in the management of adult patients severely ill with sepsis (severe sepsis or septic shock) in the UK; to assess the clinical effectiveness of IVIG for severe sepsis and septic shock and to obtain the appropriate inputs for the relative efficacy parameters, and the key uncertainties associated with these parameters, required to populate the decision model; to develop a decision-analytic model structure and identify key parameter inputs consistent with the decision problem and relevant to an NHS setting; and to populate the decision model and determine the cost-effectiveness of IVIG and to estimate the value of additional primary research. Data sources: Existing literature on IVIG and severe sepsis. Existing case-mix and outcome data on critical care admissions. Survey data on management of admissions with severe sepsis. Databases searched for clinical effectiveness were Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Trials Register, the Cochrane Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Dates searched were 1 Review methods: Systematic literature searching with data extraction, descriptive analysis and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness modelling of IVIG in severe sepsis. Additional primary data analysis. Expected value of information (EVI) analysis. Results: Our meta-analysis, the first to simultaneously allow for type of IVIG (IVIG or immunoglobulin M-enriched polyclonal IVIG), choice of control (no treatment or albumin), study quality/publication bias and other potential covariates, indicated that the treatment effect of IVIG on mortality for patients with severe sepsis is borderline significant with a large degree of heterogeneity in treatment effect between individual studies. Modelling iv Abstract indicated that there were issues with bias associated with trial methodology, publication and small-study effects with the current evidence. The large degree of heterogeneity in treatment effects between studies, however, could be explained (best-fitting model) by a measure of study quality (i.e. use of albumin as control -as an indicator of proper blinding to treatment as a proxy for study quality -associated with decreased effect) and duration of IVIG therapy (longer duration associated with increased effect). In-depth discussion within the Expert Group on duration of IVIG therapy, with daily dose and total dose also clearly inter-related, indicated no clear clinical rationale for this association and exposed a lack of evidence on the understanding of the mechanism of action of IVIG in severe sepsis. Although the EVI analyses suggested substantial expected net benefit from a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of IVIG, the remaining uncertainties around the design of such a study mean that we are unable to recommend it at this time. Limitations: As has been identified in previous meta-analyses, there are issues with the methodological quality of the available evidence. Conclusions: Although the results highlight the value for money obtained in conducting further primary research in this area, the biggest limitation for such research regards the uncertainties over the mechanism of action of IVIG and the heterogeneous nature of severe sepsis. Resolving these would allow for better definition of the plausibility of the effectiveness scenarios presented and, consequently, a better understanding of the costeffectiveness of this treatment. This information would also inform the design of future, primary evaluative research. Our recommendations for future research focus on filling the knowledge gaps to inform a future multicentre RCT prior to recommending its immediate design and conduct.