Background Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. Data sources For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. Review methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0–33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. Limitations The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. Conclusions Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. 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. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background/AimsUveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research.MethodsA Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions’ effectiveness compared with the trials’ comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources.ResultsThe estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis.ConclusionThe estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness of denosumab (DEN), raloxifene (RLX), romosozumab (ROMO) and teriparatide (TPTD), within their licensed (or anticipated licensed) indications, for the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Nine electronic databases and trial registries were searched up to the end of July 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised controlled trials (RCT) in a population at risk of osteoporotic fracture, comparing these four nonbisphosphonates DEN, RLX, ROMO, or TPTD with each other, a non-active treatment, or the bisphosphonates alendronate (ALN), risedronate (RIS), ibandronate (IBN) and zoledronic acid (ZOL). Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network metaanalyses (NMA) were used to determine the relative effectiveness of treatments. Results: The systematic review identified 7,898 citations. Forty-six RCTs of non-bisphosphonates met the inclusion criteria for the review and provided data for analyses. Additionally 49 RCTs of bisphosphonates were used in the NMAs. Forty-six RCTs were included in the NMA of vertebral fracture data, 23 RCTs for hip fractures and 73 RCTs in the NMA of femoral neck bone mineral density (FN BMD). For vertebral fractures, all four non-bisphosphonates showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo: TPTD HR 0.23 (95% credible internal (CrI) 0.16, 0.32); ROMO followed by ALN 0.25 (95% CrI 0.15, 0.43); DEN HR 0.30 (95% CrI 0.21, 0.43); RLX HR 0.61 (95% CrI 0.44, 0.80). The four non-bisphosphonates interventions studied also showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo for FN BMD, and for hip fractures TPTD, ROMO followed by ALN, and DEN showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo. Conclusions: The four non-bisphosphonate interventions studied were all clinically effective for reducing vertebral fractures when compared to placebo, and were beneficial for change in FN BMD compared to placebo. TPTD, ROMO followed by ALN, and DEN reduced hip fractures.

Declared competing interests of authors: Fahd Quhill has received personal fees from Allergan for participation in medical education and training, and has participated in advisory boards given his clinical expertise in the role of steroids in diabetic macular oedema. He has also received support from Allergan to attend international conferences.Published November 2017 DOI: 10.3310/hta21680 This report should be referenced as follows: This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) 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 reviewers 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. HTA programmeThe 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 journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 15/64/07. The protocol was agreed in June 2016. The assessment report began editorial review in December 2016 and was accepted for publication in May 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expre...

Background and Aims In many countries, conflicting gradients in alcohol consumption and alcohol‐associated mortality have been observed. To understand this ‘alcohol harm paradox’ we analysed the socio‐economic gradient in alcohol‐associated hospital admissions to test whether it was greater in conditions which were: (1) chronic (associated with long‐term drinking) and partially alcohol‐attributable, (2) chronic and wholly alcohol‐attributable, (3) acute (associated with intoxication) and partially alcohol‐attributable and (4) acute and wholly alcohol‐attributable. Our aim was to clarify how (1) drinking patterns (e.g. intoxication linked to acute admissions or dependence linked to chronic conditions) and (2) non‐alcohol causes (e.g. smoking and poor diet which are risks for partially alcohol‐attributable conditions) contribute to the paradox. Design Regression analysis testing the modifying effects of condition‐group (1–4 above) and sex on the relationship between area‐based deprivation and admissions. Setting England, April 2010–March 2013. Participants A total of 9 239 629 English hospital admissions where a primary or secondary cause was one of 36 alcohol‐associated conditions. Measurements Admissions by condition and deciles of Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Socio‐economic gradient measured as the relative index of inequality (RII, the slope of a linear regression of IMD on admissions adjusted for overall admission rate). Conditions were categorized by ICD‐10 code. Findings A socio‐economic gradient in hospitalizations was seen for all conditions, except partially attributable chronic conditions. The gradient was significantly steeper for conditions which were wholly attributable to alcohol and for acute conditions than for conditions partially alcohol‐attributable and for chronic conditions. Gradients were steeper for men than for women in cases of wholly alcohol attributable conditions. Conclusions There is a socio‐economic gradient in English hospital admission for most alcohol‐associated conditions. The greatest inequalities are in conditions associated with alcohol dependence, such as liver disease and mental and behavioural conditions, and in acute conditions, such as alcohol poisoning and assault. Socio‐economic differences in harmful drinking patterns (dependence and intoxication) may contribute to the ‘alcohol harm paradox’.