NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: pragmatic randomised Trial and economic evaluation (CONSTRUCT)

Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: pragmatic randomised Trial and economic evaluation (CONSTRUCT)

Health Technology Assessment, No. 20.44

, , , , , , , , , , , , and .

Author Information
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; .

Headline

Study found the total cost to the NHS in treating steroid-resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of serious adverse events or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1–3 years post treatment.

Abstract

Background:

The efficacy of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is proven, but there has been no comparative evaluation of effectiveness.

Objective:

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating steroid-resistant acute severe UC.

Method:

Between May 2010 and February 2013 we recruited 270 participants from 52 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to an open-label parallel-group, pragmatic randomised trial. Consented patients admitted with severe colitis completed baseline quality-of-life questionnaires before receiving intravenous hydrocortisone. If they failed to respond within about 5 days, and met other inclusion criteria, we invited them to participate and used a web-based adaptive randomisation algorithm to allocate them in equal proportions between 5 mg/kg of intravenous infliximab at 0, 2 and 6 weeks or 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous ciclosporin for 7 days followed by 5.5 mg/kg/day of oral ciclosporin until 12 weeks from randomisation. Further treatment was at the discretion of physicians responsible for clinical management. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival (QAS): the area under the curve (AUC) of scores derived from Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaires completed by participants at 3 and 6 months, and then 6-monthly over 1–3 years, more frequently after surgery. Secondary outcomes collected simultaneously included European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores and NHS resource use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Blinding was possible only for data analysts. We interviewed 20 trial participants and 23 participating professionals. Funded data collection finished in March 2014. Most participants consented to complete annual questionnaires and for us to analyse their routinely collected health data over 10 years.

Results:

The 135 participants in each group were well matched at baseline. In 121 participants analysed in each group, we found no significant difference between infliximab and ciclosporin in QAS [mean difference in AUC/day 0.0297 favouring ciclosporin, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.0088 to 0.0682; p = 0.129]; EQ-5D scores (quality-adjusted life-year mean difference 0.021 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI –0.032 to 0.096; p = 0.350); Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions scores (mean difference 0.0051 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI –0.0250 to 0.0353; p = 0.737). There was no statistically significant difference in colectomy rates [odds ratio (OR) 1.350 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.832 to 2.188; p = 0.223]; numbers of serious adverse reactions (event ratio = 0.938 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.590 to 1.493; p = 0.788); participants with serious adverse reactions (OR 0.660 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.282 to 1.546; p = 0.338); numbers of serious adverse events (event ratio 1.075 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.603 to 1.917; p = 0.807); participants with serious adverse events (OR 0.999 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.114; p = 0.998); deaths (all three who died received infliximab; p = 0.247) or concomitant use of immunosuppressants. The lower cost of ciclosporin led to lower total NHS costs (mean difference –£5632, 95% CI –£8305 to –£2773; p < 0.001). Interviews highlighted the debilitating effect of UC; participants were more positive about infliximab than ciclosporin. Professionals reported advantages and disadvantages with both drugs, but nurses disliked the intravenous ciclosporin.

Conclusions:

Total cost to the NHS was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of SAEs or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1–3 years post treatment. To assess long-term outcome participants will be followed up for 10 years post randomisation, using questionnaires and routinely collected data. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of new anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs and formulations of ciclosporin.

Trial registration:

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22663589.

Funding:

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Contents

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 06/78/03. The contractual start date was in September 2008. The draft report began editorial review in December 2014 and was accepted for publication in August 2015. 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.

Declared competing interests of authors

John G Williams was a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board from 2008 to 2011 and the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research Researcher-Led Board from 2009 to 2014.

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2016. This work was produced by Williams et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK368274DOI: 10.3310/hta20440

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (8.5M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...