Background:Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)α treatments improve outcome in severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are efficacious in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. However recent case reports describe psoriasis occurring as an adverse event in patients with RA receiving anti-TNFα therapy.Objectives:We aimed to determine whether the incidence rate of psoriasis was higher in patients with RA treated with anti-TNFα therapy compared to those treated with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We also compared the incidence rates of psoriasis between the three anti-TNFα drugs licensed for RA.Methods:We studied 9826 anti-TNF-treated and 2880 DMARD-treated patients with severe RA from The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR). All patients reported with new onset psoriasis as an adverse event were included in the analysis. Incidence rates of psoriasis were calculated as events/1000 person years and compared using incidence rate ratios (IRR).Results:In all, 25 incident cases of psoriasis in patients receiving anti-TNFα therapy and none in the comparison cohort were reported between January 2001 and July 2007. The absence of any cases in the comparison cohort precluded a direct comparison; however the crude incidence rate of psoriasis in those treated with anti-TNFα therapy was elevated at 1.04 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.54) per 1000 person years compared to the rate of 0 (upper 97.5% CI 0.71) per 1000 person years in the patients treated with DMARDs. Patients treated with adalimumab had a significantly higher rate of incident psoriasis compared to patients treated with etanercept (IRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 12.1) and infliximab (IRR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 9.3).Conclusions:Results from this study suggest that the incidence of psoriasis is increased in patients treated with anti-TNFα therapy. Our findings also suggest that the incidence may be higher in patients treated with adalimumab.

Multivariate random effects meta-analysis (MRMA) is an appropriate way for synthesizing data from studies reporting multiple correlated outcomes. In a Bayesian framework, it has great potential for integrating evidence from a variety of sources. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian model for MRMA of mixed outcomes, which extends previously developed bivariate models to the trivariate case and also allows for combination of multiple outcomes that are both continuous and binary. We have constructed informative prior distributions for the correlations by using external evidence. Prior distributions for the within-study correlations were constructed by employing external individual patent data and using a double bootstrap method to obtain the correlations between mixed outcomes. The between-study model of MRMA was parameterized in the form of a product of a series of univariate conditional normal distributions. This allowed us to place explicit prior distributions on the between-study correlations, which were constructed using external summary data. Traditionally, independent ‘vague’ prior distributions are placed on all parameters of the model. In contrast to this approach, we constructed prior distributions for the between-study model parameters in a way that takes into account the inter-relationship between them. This is a flexible method that can be extended to incorporate mixed outcomes other than continuous and binary and beyond the trivariate case. We have applied this model to a motivating example in rheumatoid arthritis with the aim of incorporating all available evidence in the synthesis and potentially reducing uncertainty around the estimate of interest. © 2013 The Authors. Statistics inMedicine Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Objective To estimate the impact of a national primary care pay for performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework in England, on emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs).Design Controlled longitudinal study.Setting English National Health Service between 1998/99 and 2010/11. Participants Populations registered with each of 6975 family practices in England.Main outcome measures Year specific differences between trend adjusted emergency hospital admission rates for incentivised ACSCs before and after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework scheme and two comparators: non-incentivised ACSCs and non-ACSCs.Results Incentivised ACSC admissions showed a relative reduction of 2.7% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.8%) in the first year of the Quality and Outcomes Framework compared with ACSCs that were not incentivised. This increased to a relative reduction of 8.0% (6.9% to 9.1%) in 2010/11. Compared with conditions that are not regarded as being influenced by the quality of ambulatory care (non-ACSCs), incentivised ACSCs also showed a relative reduction in rates of emergency admissions of 2.8% (2.0% to 3.6%) in the first year increasing to 10.9% (10.1% to 11.7%) by 2010/11. ConclusionsThe introduction of a major national pay for performance scheme for primary care in England was associated with a decrease in emergency admissions for incentivised conditions compared with conditions that were not incentivised. Contemporaneous health service changes seem unlikely to have caused the sharp change in the trajectory of incentivised ACSC admissions immediately after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The decrease seems larger than would be expected from the changes in the process measures that were incentivised, suggesting that the pay for performance scheme may have had impacts on quality of care beyond the directly incentivised activities.

The BSRBR data provide valuable evidence for estimating cost-effectiveness. The analysis concludes that current policies and practice for the use of TNF-alpha antagonist therapies, after RA patients have failed at least two traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, appear cost-effective in the context of the NICE re-appraisal of 2006 for England and Wales, thus supporting their decision to continue their reimbursement. Decision-makers worldwide might adapt this analysis because differential costs, discount rates and other factors could affect results. There remains uncertainty, particularly on long-term disease progression. Further data collection using the BSRBR is recommended, together with a revision to this analysis when data become available.

Improvements in reporting and transparency of risk presentation from conception to the analysis of DCEs are needed. To define best practice, further research is needed to test how the process of communicating risk affects the way in which people value risk attributes in DCEs.

No abstract

The burden of SLE was found to be substantial, not only for patients but also for the health services that provide care for them. Treatments that are able to alleviate this burden are therefore likely to be highly valued by sufferers. After an extended period in which few therapeutic advances were made or treatments licensed, fundamental developments are finally being made. These new treatments will need to be evaluated for both clinical and cost effectiveness if their use is to be widely implemented.

ObjectivesTo review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.MethodsA systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers. Inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.DesignSystematic review.ResultsWe identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.ConclusionsDiscordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.