The Experts below are selected from a list of 480 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Hema Mistry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Chondrosphere for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
    PharmacoEconomics, 2019
    Co-Authors: Xavier Armoiry, Martin Connock, Ewen Cummins, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Rhona Johnston, Jeremy Rodrigues, Norman Waugh, Hema Mistry
    Abstract:

    Chondrosphere (Spherox) is a form of autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI). It is licensed for repair of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and the patella of the knee with defect sizes up to 10 cm^2 in adults. In a single technology appraisal (STA) [TA508] undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Warwick Evidence was the Evidence Review Group (ERG) invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Co.Don. The clinical effectiveness data came from their COWISI randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared Chondrosphere with microfracture (MF). The timing of this appraisal was unfortunate given that MF was no longer the most relevant comparator because NICE had contemporaneously published guidance approving ACI in place of MF. Moreover, the COWISI RCT enrolled mostly patients with small defect sizes. Evidence of clinical effectiveness for Chondrosphere used in people with larger defect size came from another RCT, which compared three doses of Chondrosphere and that by design could not provide evidence comparing Chondrosphere to any other forms of ACI. To estimate the relative clinical performance of Chondrosphere versus other ACI, Co.Don conducted an indirect treatment comparison by network meta-analyses (NMA). The NMA was flawed in that the distribution of population characteristics that are effect modifiers greatly differed across the treatment comparisons of the network. The ERG questioned both the appropriateness of the NMA and the validity of the resulting estimates. Co.Don estimated the cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere using a lifetime Markov model with all patients receiving the first repair during the first cycle of the model then moving into one of three health states: success, no further repair (NFR), or a second repair, if necessary. Subsequent to the first cycle, those who were a success either remained a success or moved to second repair. All those in NFR remained in NFR. The cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere compared to other ACI forms relied on the clinical effectiveness estimates of success and failure rates obtained from the company’s indirect comparisons, the validity of which the ERG questioned. The company revised cost-effectiveness estimates for Chondrosphere versus MF and for Chondrosphere versus matrix-applied characterised autologous cultured Chondrocyte Implant (MACI) were £4360 and around £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. NICE recommended ACI using Chondrosphere for treating symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and patella of the knee in adults only if certain requirements were met.

  • autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee systematic review and economic evaluation
    Health Technology Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Andrew J Metcalfe, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of Chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
    NIHR Journals Library, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms

Norman Waugh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Chondrosphere for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
    PharmacoEconomics, 2019
    Co-Authors: Xavier Armoiry, Martin Connock, Ewen Cummins, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Rhona Johnston, Jeremy Rodrigues, Norman Waugh, Hema Mistry
    Abstract:

    Chondrosphere (Spherox) is a form of autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI). It is licensed for repair of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and the patella of the knee with defect sizes up to 10 cm^2 in adults. In a single technology appraisal (STA) [TA508] undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Warwick Evidence was the Evidence Review Group (ERG) invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Co.Don. The clinical effectiveness data came from their COWISI randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared Chondrosphere with microfracture (MF). The timing of this appraisal was unfortunate given that MF was no longer the most relevant comparator because NICE had contemporaneously published guidance approving ACI in place of MF. Moreover, the COWISI RCT enrolled mostly patients with small defect sizes. Evidence of clinical effectiveness for Chondrosphere used in people with larger defect size came from another RCT, which compared three doses of Chondrosphere and that by design could not provide evidence comparing Chondrosphere to any other forms of ACI. To estimate the relative clinical performance of Chondrosphere versus other ACI, Co.Don conducted an indirect treatment comparison by network meta-analyses (NMA). The NMA was flawed in that the distribution of population characteristics that are effect modifiers greatly differed across the treatment comparisons of the network. The ERG questioned both the appropriateness of the NMA and the validity of the resulting estimates. Co.Don estimated the cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere using a lifetime Markov model with all patients receiving the first repair during the first cycle of the model then moving into one of three health states: success, no further repair (NFR), or a second repair, if necessary. Subsequent to the first cycle, those who were a success either remained a success or moved to second repair. All those in NFR remained in NFR. The cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere compared to other ACI forms relied on the clinical effectiveness estimates of success and failure rates obtained from the company’s indirect comparisons, the validity of which the ERG questioned. The company revised cost-effectiveness estimates for Chondrosphere versus MF and for Chondrosphere versus matrix-applied characterised autologous cultured Chondrocyte Implant (MACI) were £4360 and around £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. NICE recommended ACI using Chondrosphere for treating symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and patella of the knee in adults only if certain requirements were met.

  • autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee systematic review and economic evaluation
    Health Technology Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Andrew J Metcalfe, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of Chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
    NIHR Journals Library, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms

Martin Connock - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Chondrosphere for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
    PharmacoEconomics, 2019
    Co-Authors: Xavier Armoiry, Martin Connock, Ewen Cummins, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Rhona Johnston, Jeremy Rodrigues, Norman Waugh, Hema Mistry
    Abstract:

    Chondrosphere (Spherox) is a form of autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI). It is licensed for repair of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and the patella of the knee with defect sizes up to 10 cm^2 in adults. In a single technology appraisal (STA) [TA508] undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Warwick Evidence was the Evidence Review Group (ERG) invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Co.Don. The clinical effectiveness data came from their COWISI randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared Chondrosphere with microfracture (MF). The timing of this appraisal was unfortunate given that MF was no longer the most relevant comparator because NICE had contemporaneously published guidance approving ACI in place of MF. Moreover, the COWISI RCT enrolled mostly patients with small defect sizes. Evidence of clinical effectiveness for Chondrosphere used in people with larger defect size came from another RCT, which compared three doses of Chondrosphere and that by design could not provide evidence comparing Chondrosphere to any other forms of ACI. To estimate the relative clinical performance of Chondrosphere versus other ACI, Co.Don conducted an indirect treatment comparison by network meta-analyses (NMA). The NMA was flawed in that the distribution of population characteristics that are effect modifiers greatly differed across the treatment comparisons of the network. The ERG questioned both the appropriateness of the NMA and the validity of the resulting estimates. Co.Don estimated the cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere using a lifetime Markov model with all patients receiving the first repair during the first cycle of the model then moving into one of three health states: success, no further repair (NFR), or a second repair, if necessary. Subsequent to the first cycle, those who were a success either remained a success or moved to second repair. All those in NFR remained in NFR. The cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere compared to other ACI forms relied on the clinical effectiveness estimates of success and failure rates obtained from the company’s indirect comparisons, the validity of which the ERG questioned. The company revised cost-effectiveness estimates for Chondrosphere versus MF and for Chondrosphere versus matrix-applied characterised autologous cultured Chondrocyte Implant (MACI) were £4360 and around £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. NICE recommended ACI using Chondrosphere for treating symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and patella of the knee in adults only if certain requirements were met.

  • autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee systematic review and economic evaluation
    Health Technology Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Andrew J Metcalfe, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of Chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
    NIHR Journals Library, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms

Pamela Royle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Chondrosphere for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
    PharmacoEconomics, 2019
    Co-Authors: Xavier Armoiry, Martin Connock, Ewen Cummins, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Rhona Johnston, Jeremy Rodrigues, Norman Waugh, Hema Mistry
    Abstract:

    Chondrosphere (Spherox) is a form of autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI). It is licensed for repair of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and the patella of the knee with defect sizes up to 10 cm^2 in adults. In a single technology appraisal (STA) [TA508] undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Warwick Evidence was the Evidence Review Group (ERG) invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Co.Don. The clinical effectiveness data came from their COWISI randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared Chondrosphere with microfracture (MF). The timing of this appraisal was unfortunate given that MF was no longer the most relevant comparator because NICE had contemporaneously published guidance approving ACI in place of MF. Moreover, the COWISI RCT enrolled mostly patients with small defect sizes. Evidence of clinical effectiveness for Chondrosphere used in people with larger defect size came from another RCT, which compared three doses of Chondrosphere and that by design could not provide evidence comparing Chondrosphere to any other forms of ACI. To estimate the relative clinical performance of Chondrosphere versus other ACI, Co.Don conducted an indirect treatment comparison by network meta-analyses (NMA). The NMA was flawed in that the distribution of population characteristics that are effect modifiers greatly differed across the treatment comparisons of the network. The ERG questioned both the appropriateness of the NMA and the validity of the resulting estimates. Co.Don estimated the cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere using a lifetime Markov model with all patients receiving the first repair during the first cycle of the model then moving into one of three health states: success, no further repair (NFR), or a second repair, if necessary. Subsequent to the first cycle, those who were a success either remained a success or moved to second repair. All those in NFR remained in NFR. The cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere compared to other ACI forms relied on the clinical effectiveness estimates of success and failure rates obtained from the company’s indirect comparisons, the validity of which the ERG questioned. The company revised cost-effectiveness estimates for Chondrosphere versus MF and for Chondrosphere versus matrix-applied characterised autologous cultured Chondrocyte Implant (MACI) were £4360 and around £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. NICE recommended ACI using Chondrosphere for treating symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and patella of the knee in adults only if certain requirements were met.

  • autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee systematic review and economic evaluation
    Health Technology Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Andrew J Metcalfe, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of Chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
    NIHR Journals Library, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms

Joshua Pink - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee systematic review and economic evaluation
    Health Technology Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Andrew J Metcalfe, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of Chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.

  • Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
    NIHR Journals Library, 2017
    Co-Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Andrew Metcalfe, Pamela Royle, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Norman Waugh
    Abstract:

    Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called Chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then Implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous Chondrocyte Implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised Chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms