Search

Preclinical studies support a protective role for aspirin in early diabetic retinopathy (DR), but the findings from randomized trials are limited. We present randomized evidence for the efficacy and safety of aspirin on DR outcomes. A substudy of the A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes (ASCEND) double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 100 mg aspirin daily for the primary prevention of serious cardiovascular events in people with diabetes. Fifteen thousand four hundred eighty United Kingdom adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes. Linkage to electronic National Health Service Diabetic Eye Screening Programme records in England and Wales and confirmation of participant-reported eye events via medical record review were carried out. Log-rank methods were used for intention-to-treat analyses of time until the first primary efficacy and safety outcomes. The primary efficacy end point was the first record of referable disease after randomization, a composite of referable retinopathy or referable maculopathy based on the grading criteria defined by the United Kingdom National Screening Committee. The primary safety outcome was the first sight-threatening eye bleed, defined as clinically significant bleeding in the eye that resulted in unresolved visual loss or required an urgent intervention such as laser photocoagulation, vitreoretinal surgery, intraocular injection, or a combination thereof. Linkage data were obtained for 7360 participants (48% of those randomized in ASCEND). During the mean follow-up of 6.5 years, 539 participants (14.6%) experienced a referable disease event in the aspirin group, compared with 522 participants (14.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–1.16; P = 0.64). No statistically significant between-group difference was found in the proportions of sight-threatening eye bleed events (57 participants [0.7%] and 64 participants [0.8%], respectively; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.62–1.27). These data exclude any clinically meaningful benefits of aspirin for DR, but give reassurance regarding the ophthalmologic safety of aspirin. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preclinical studies support a protective role for omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) on diabetic retinopathy (DR), but these observations have not been confirmed in randomized trials. We present randomized evidence for the effects of omega-3 FAs on DR outcomes. A substudy of the A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes (ASCEND) double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 1 g omega-3 fatty acids (containing 460 mg eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg docosahexaenoic acid) daily for the primary prevention of serious cardiovascular events, in 15 480 UK adults at least 40 years of age, with diabetes. Fifteen thousand four hundred eighty adults at least 40 years of age from the United Kingdom with diabetes from the ASCEND cohort. Linkage to electronic National Health Service Diabetic Eye Screening Programme records in England and Wales and confirmation of participant-reported eye events via medical record review. Log-rank and stratified log-rank methods were used for intention-to-treat analyses of time until the main outcomes of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to the first postrandomization recording of referable disease, a composite of referable retinopathy (R 2 or R 3a/s) or referable maculopathy (M 1) based on the grading criteria defined by the United Kingdom National Screening Committee. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included the referable disease outcome stratified by the severity of DR at baseline, any progression in retinopathy grade, and incident diabetic maculopathy. Linkage data were obtained for 7360 participants (48% of those who were randomized in ASCEND). During their mean follow-up of 6.5 years, 548 participants (14.8%) had a referable disease event in the omega-3 FAs group, compared with 513 participants (13.9%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.20; P = 0.29). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of events for either of the secondary or tertiary outcomes. Representing the largest prospective test of its kind to date, these data exclude any clinically meaningful benefits of 1 g daily omega-3 FAs on DR. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We applied principles for conducting economic evaluations of factorial trials to a trial-based economic evaluation of a cluster-randomized 2 × 2 × 2 factorial trial. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin, omega-3 fish oil, and an action-planning leaflet, alone and in combination, from a UK National Health Service perspective.Methods: The Atorvastatin in Factorial With Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes (AFORRD) Trial randomized 800 patients with type 2 diabetes to atorvastatin, omega-3, or their respective placebos and randomized general practices to receive a leaflet-based action-planning intervention designed to improve compliance or standard care. The trial was conducted at 59 UK general practices. Sixteen-week outcomes for each trial participant were extrapolated for 70 years using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model v2.01. We analyzed the trial as a 2 × 2 factorial trial (ignoring interactions between action-planning leaflet and medication), as a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial trial (considering all interactions), and ignoring all interactions.Results: We observed several qualitative interactions for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that changed treatment rankings. However, different approaches to analyzing the factorial design did not change the conclusions. There was a ≥99% chance that atorvastatin is cost-effective and omega-3 is not, at a £20 000/QALY threshold.Conclusions: Atorvastatin monotherapy was the most cost-effective combination of the 3 trial interventions at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Omega-3 fish oil was not cost-effective, while there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about action planning. Recently-developed methods for analyzing factorial trials and combining parameter and sampling uncertainty were extended to estimate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves within a 2x2x2 factorial design with model-based extrapolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of topical intranasal steroids for the treatment of otitis media with effusion (OME) in primary care from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted based on evidence from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled GPRF [General Practice Research Framework] Nasal Steroids for Otitis Media with Effusion (GNOME) trial. Participants comprised 217 children aged 4–11 years who had at least one episode of otitis media or related ear problem in the previous 12 months and had tympanometrically confirmed bilateral OME. Children were randomly allocated to receive either mometasone furoate 50 µg or placebo spray once daily into each nostril for 3 months. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for topical steroids compared with placebo. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at alternative willingness to pay thresholds. Results: Children receiving topical steroids accrued nonsignificantly higher costs (incremental cost/child: £11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −£199 to £222) and nonsignificantly fewer QALYs (incremental QALY gain/child: −0.0166, 95% CI: −0.0652 to 0.0320) than those receiving placebo. Topical steroids had a 24.19% probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000 per QALY gained threshold, a 23.82% probability of being more effective and a 46.25% probability of being less costly. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed incremental costs and benefits to be highly sensitive to the methods used and the patient group considered, although differences between groups did not reach statistical significance in any analysis. Conclusions: Topical steroids are unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for OME in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]