Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23341194›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013

Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal.

Dawn Craig, Stephen Rice, Fiona Paton, David Fox, Nerys Woolacott

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Joining the Dots: Linking Disconnected Networks of Evidence Using Dose-Response Model-Based Network Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  2. Emerging drugs for partial-onset epilepsy: a review of brivaracetam.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2016
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dawn CraigCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. dawn.craig@york.ac.uk
Stephen Rice
Fiona Paton
David Fox
Nerys Woolacott
University of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of retigabine (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy, with and without secondary generalization, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG undertakes a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searches for relevant evidence and evaluates modifications to the manufacturer's decision-analytic model. This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical effectiveness data were derived from three placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis pooling across all doses of retigabine found beneficial effects of retigabine in terms of responder rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.79; 95 % CI 2.08, 3.76) and rate of seizure freedom (OR 2.54; 95 % CI 0.92, 6.98) [both double-blind phase analyses]. When compared in a network meta-analysis with the selected comparator antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, pregabalin, tiagabine and zonisamide], retigabine offered broadly similar efficacy in terms of responder rate and freedom from seizure. The de novo decision-analytic model presented within the submission evaluated the cost effectiveness of retigabine compared with these AEDs and no treatment (i.e. maintenance therapy). After numerous additional analyses, the ERG considered the use of retigabine to be not cost effective for NICE at thresholds below £43,000 if no treatment was considered a relevant comparator. The NICE Appraisal Committee decided that an appropriate comparator was an active treatment. The Committee recommended that retigabine is offered as an option for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults aged 18 years and older with epilepsy, only when previous treatment with carbamazepine, clobazam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, sodium valproate and topiramate has not provided an adequate response, or has not been tolerated.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnticonvulsantsCarbamatesCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesDrug IndustryEpilepsies, PartialHumansModels, TheoreticalPhenylenediaminesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSeizuresYoung AdultAnticonvulsantsCarbamatesezogabinePhenylenediamines

Identifiers

PMID23341194
OpenAlexW1585774815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.