Search

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of denosumab (Amgen Inc., UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of fragility fractures in post-menopausal women, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The University of Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG); the role of the ERG being to appraise the manufacturer's submission and to produce an independent report. This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The manufacturer considered that denosumab would be appropriate for patients unable to take, comply with or tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Comparator treatments selected for the submission were, therefore, 'no treatment', raloxifene, strontium ranelate, intravenous zoledronic acid, intravenous ibandronate and teriparatide. The main effectiveness evidence for denosumab was derived from a large randomized controlled trial comparing denosumab with placebo. Given by subcutaneous injection at 6-monthly intervals for 3 years, denosumab reduced the incidence of hip fracture by 40%, and reduced the incidence of clinical vertebral fracture by 69%. An indirect treatment comparison was used to derive adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates for different types of fracture for each comparator versus placebo. The RRs (95% CI) applied for denosumab were 0.316 (0.208, 0.478) for clinical vertebral fracture, 0.605 (0.373, 0.983) for hip fracture and 0.842 (0.638, 1.110) for wrist fracture. Despite a number of concerns surrounding the methodology of the indirect comparison, the ERG was satisfied with the robustness of the effect estimates. The RR estimates were applied in a good-quality Markov model that took account of drug costs, administration and monitoring costs, costs associated with fractures, and long-term nursing home costs. Utility weights were used to adjust time spent in fracture states, allowing QALYs to be estimated. The base-case analysis was conducted for women aged 70 years with a T-score of -2.5 or less and no prior fracture, and women aged 70 years with a T-score of -2.5 or less with a prior fragility fracture. Subgroup analyses based on T-score and independent clinical risk factors were also undertaken. Applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £30 000 per QALY, the manufacturer's results suggested that denosumab would offer a cost-effective alternative to all treatment comparators for the primary and secondary prevention of fractures. The ERG was concerned about an assumption that denosumab would be administered in general practice at the average cost of two standard GP visits a year. As a result, the ERG requested some further sensitivity analysis and undertook some further modelling, applying an assumption that denosumab would be provided primarily in secondary care. This modification altered the cost effectiveness of denosumab versus 'no treatment' (in women with no prior fragility fracture) and zoledronic acid. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that, as a treatment option for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, denosumab should be recommended only in post-menopausal women at increased risk of fracture who cannot comply with the special instructions for administering oral bisphosphonates, or have an intolerance of, or contraindication to, those treatments. For primary prevention, the Appraisal Committee also stipulated specific levels of fracture risk at which denosumab is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Increasing the proportion of births with skilled attendance is advocated by international agencies as a key factor in reducing maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. The SAFE Strategy Development Tool is designed to enable policy makers and planners to gather and interpret information systematically to develop strategies for improving skilled attendance at birth. METHOD: Five modules were developed with partners in Bangladesh, Ghana, Jamaica, Malawi, and Mexico to guide the identification of problems related to skilled attendance, the collection of primary and secondary evidence, and the synthesis of this evidence to formulate strategies. The involvement of key players, including policy makers, is emphasized throughout the application of the tool and is vital to its success. RESULTS: The SAFE Strategy Development Tool was field tested in five collaborating countries. The methods employed by this tool were found to be feasible and produced evidence that will be useful in the formulation of strategies. Application of the tool can be completed in 3 to 5 months, and was estimated to cost between US$12,938 and US$15,627 for applications at district or subdistrict level. The final strategy options developed from the findings were presented at an international workshop in Aberdeen, Scotland, in February 2003. CONCLUSION: The SAFE Strategy Development Tool is now available to governments, organizations, and institutions involved in the implementation of maternal health programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economic evaluations of the value-for-money of Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR) interventions are increasingly important due to growing pressure on healthcare budgets. Although such evaluations are commonplace in the published literature, the number/methodological complexity of different evaluations available, and the challenges specific to MAR interventions, can complicate the interpretation of such analyses for fertility treatments. This article aims to serve as an educational resource and provide context on the design/interpretation of economic analyses for MAR interventions. Several areas are relevant for first-line providers and decision makers: scope of analysis, comparator used, perspective/time horizon considered, outcomes used to measure success, and how results from cost-effectiveness studies can be summarised and used in clinical practice. We aim to help clinicians better understand the strengths/weaknesses of economic analyses, to enable the best use of the evidence in practice, so resources available for MAR interventions can provide maximum value to patients and society., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors in this manuscript were qualified according to ICMJE criteria and has received no fees for their authorship. ML and TDH are employees of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Outside of the submitted manuscript, MPC has received honoraria for a lecture from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; AR has received, individually or as part of his institution, grants, honoraria or consultation fees from Merck Healthcare, Darmstadt, Germany, Ferring and MSD. The remaining authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC., Methods: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life., Discussion: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015)., Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for controlling seizures in adults with convulsive status epilepticus before, or at, arrival at hospital., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiepileptic drugs offered to adults as first-line treatments. Major electronic databases were searched., Results: Four RCTs (1234 adults) were included. None were conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal or intranasal midazolam. Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics were more effective than placebo and, notably, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Overall, median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 2 to 15 min. Rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments ranged from 6.4 to 10.6%. Mortality ranged from 2 to 7.6% in active treatment groups and 6.2 to 15.5% in control groups., Conclusions: Intravenous and intramuscular benzodiazepines are safe and effective in this clinical context. Further research is needed to establish the most clinically and cost-effective first-line treatment and preferable mode of administration. Head-to-head trials comparing buccal versus intranasal midazolam versus rectal diazepam would provide useful information to inform the management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults, especially when intravenous or intramuscular access is not feasible. Approaches to improve adherence to clinical guidelines on the use of currently available benzodiazepines for the first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus should also be considered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The benefit of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in guiding asthma treatment is uncertain. We evaluated the efficacy of adding FeNO to symptom-guided treatment in children with asthma versus only symptom-guided treatment., Methods: RAACENO was a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in 35 secondary care centres and 17 primary care recruitment sites (only seven primary care sites managed to recruit patients) in the UK. Patients with a confirmed asthma diagnosis, aged 6-15 years, prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, and who received a course of oral corticosteroids for at least one asthma exacerbation during the 12 months before recruitment were included. Participants were randomly assigned to either FeNO plus symptom-guided treatment (intervention) or symptom-guided treatment alone (standard care) using a 24 h in-house, web-based randomisation system. Participants and the clinical and research teams were not masked to the group allocation. A web-based algorithm gave treatment recommendations based on the Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood ACT (CACT) score; current asthma treatment; adherence to study treatment in the past 3 months; and use of FeNO (in the intervention group). Follow-up occurred at 3-month intervals for 12 months. The primary outcome was any asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ISRCTN67875351., Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and Aug 8, 2019, 535 children were assessed for eligibility, 20 were ineligible and six were excluded post-randomisation. 509 children were recruited and at baseline, the mean age of participants was 10·1 years (SD 2·6), and 308 (60·5%) were male. The median FeNO was 21 ppb (IQR 10-48), mean predicted FEV 1 was 89·6% (SD 18·0), and median daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids was 400 μg budesonide equivalent (IQR 400-1000). Asthma was partly or fully controlled in 256 (50·3%) of 509 participants. The primary outcome, which was available for 506 (99%) of 509 participants, occurred in 123 (48·2%) of 255 participants in the intervention group and 129 (51·4%) of 251 in the standard care group, the intention-to-treat adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0·88 (95% CI 0·61 to 1·27; p=0·49). The adjusted difference in the percentage of participants who received the intervention in whom the primary outcome occurred compared with those who received standard care was -3·1% (-11·9% to 5·6%). In 377 (21·3%) of 1771 assessments, the algorithm recommendation was not followed. Adverse events were reported by 27 (5·3%) of 509 participants (15 in the standard care group and 12 in the intervention group). The most common adverse event was itch after skin prick testing (reported by eight participants in each group)., Interpretation: We found that the addition of FeNO to symptom-guided asthma treatment did not lead to reduced exacerbations among children prone to asthma exacerbation. Asthma symptoms remain the only tool for guiding treatment decisions., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DP has board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Airway Vista Secretariat, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, EPG Communication Holdings, FIECON, Fieldwork International, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, OM Pharma, PeerVoice, Phadia, Spirosure, Strategic North, Synapse Research Management Partners, Talos Health Solutions, Theravance, and WebMD Global; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance, and the UK National Health Service; payment for lectures or speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme; payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, and Thermo Fisher Scientific; stock and stock options from AKL Research and Development, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise of Optimum Patient Care (Australia and the UK) and 93% of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (Singapore); has 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; and is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it., Objective: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos., Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019., Participants: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years., Interventions: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control)., Outcomes: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores., Results: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos ( n  = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth., Limitations: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected., Conclusion: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Convulsive status epilepticus is defined as ≥ 5 minutes of either continuous seizure activity or repetitive seizures without regaining consciousness. It is regarded as an emergency condition that requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Rapid pre-hospital first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus is currently benzodiazepines, administered either by trained caregivers in the community (e.g. buccal midazolam, rectal diazepam) or by trained health professionals via intramuscular or intravenous routes (e.g. midazolam, lorazepam). There is a lack of clarity about the optimal treatment for convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting., Objectives: To assess the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for adults with convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting., Data Sources: We searched major electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo ® , CINAHL, CENTRAL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Research Papers in Economics, and the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database, with no restrictions on publication date or language of publication. Final searches were carried out on 21 July 2020., Review Methods: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing adults with convulsive status epilepticus who received treatment before or on arrival at the emergency department. Eligible treatments were any antiepileptic drugs offered as first-line treatments, regardless of their route of administration. Primary outcomes were seizure cessation, seizure recurrence and adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened all citations identified by the search strategy, retrieved full-text articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Results were described narratively., Results: Four trials (1345 randomised participants, of whom 1234 were adults) assessed the intravenous or intramuscular use of benzodiazepines or other antiepileptic drugs for the pre-hospital treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in adults. Three trials at a low risk of bias showed that benzodiazepines were effective in stopping seizures. In particular, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. The addition of levetiracetam to clonazepam did not show clear advantages over clonazepam alone. One trial at a high risk of bias showed that phenobarbital plus optional phenytoin was more effective in terminating seizures than diazepam plus phenytoin. The median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 1.6 minutes to 15 minutes. The proportion of people with recurrence of seizures ranged from 10.4% to 19.1% in two trials reporting this outcome. Across trials, the rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments were generally low (from 6.4% to 10.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 2% to 7.6% in active treatment groups and from 6.2% to 15.5% in control groups. Only one study based on retrospective observational data met the criteria for economic evaluation; therefore, it was not possible to draw any robust conclusions on cost-effectiveness., Limitations: The limited number of identified trials and their differences in terms of treatment comparisons and outcomes hindered any meaningful pooling of data. None of the included trials was conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam. The review of economic evaluations was hampered by lack of suitable data., Conclusions: Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics are more effective than a placebo in the treatments of adults with convulsive status epilepticus, and intramuscular midazolam is non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Large well-designed clinical trials are needed to establish which benzodiazepines are more effective and preferable in the pre-hospital setting., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020201953., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Study Question: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos?, Summary Answer: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby., What Is Known Already: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos., Study Design, Size, Duration: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results., Wider Implications of the Findings: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN: 61225414., Trial Registration Date: 29 December 2015., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 16 February 2016., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration is a leading cause of sight loss, and early detection and treatment is important. For patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye, it is usual practice to monitor the unaffected eye. The test used to diagnose neovascular age-related macular degeneration, fundus fluorescein angiography, is an invasive test. Non-invasive tests are available, but their diagnostic accuracy is unclear., Objectives: The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic monitoring performance of tests for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The secondary objectives were the cost-effectiveness of tests and to identify predictive factors of developing neovascular age-related macular degeneration., Design: This was a multicentre, prospective, cohort, comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a monitoring setting for up to 3 years. A Cox regression risk prediction model and a Markov microsimulation model comparing cost-effectiveness of the index tests over 25 years were used., Setting: This took place in hospital eye services., Participants: Participants were adults (aged 50-95 years) with newly diagnosed (within the previous 6 weeks) neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye and an unaffected second (study) eye who were attending for treatment injections in the first eye and who had a study eye baseline visual acuity of ≥ 68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters., Interventions: The index tests were Amsler chart (completed by participants), fundus clinical examination, optical coherence tomography, self-reported vision assessment (completed by participants) and visual acuity. The reference standard was fundus fluorescein angiography., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity; the performance of the risk predictor model; and costs and quality-adjusted life-years., Results: In total, 552 out of 578 patients who consented from 24 NHS hospitals ( n  = 16 ineligible; n  = 10 withdrew consent) took part. The mean age of the patients was 77.4 years (standard deviation 7.7 years) and 57.2% were female. For the primary analysis, 464 patients underwent follow-up fundus fluorescein angiography and 120 developed neovascular age-related macular degeneration on fundus fluorescein angiography. The diagnostic accuracy [sensitivity (%) (95% confidence interval); specificity (%) (95% confidence interval)] was as follows: optical coherence tomography 91.7 (85.2 to 95.6); 87.8 (83.8 to 90.9)], fundus clinical examination [53.8 (44.8 to 62.5); 97.6 (95.3 to 98.9)], Amsler [33.7 (25.1 to 43.5); 81.4 (76.4 to 85.5)], visual acuity [30.0 (22.5 to 38.7); 66.3 (61.0 to 71.1)] and self-reported vision [4.2 (1.6 to 9.8); 97.0 (94.6 to 98.5)]. Optical coherence tomography had the highest sensitivity across all secondary analyses. The final prediction model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the non-affected eye included smoking status, family history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, the presence of nodular drusen with or without reticular pseudodrusen, and the presence of pigmentary abnormalities [ c -statistic 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.71)]. Optical coherence tomography monitoring generated the greatest quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (optical coherence tomography, 5.830; fundus clinical examination, 5.787; Amsler chart, 5.736, self-reported vision, 5.630; and visual acuity, 5.600) for the lowest health-care and social care costs (optical coherence tomography, £19,406; fundus clinical examination, £19,649; Amsler chart, £19,751; self-reported vision, £20,198; and visual acuity, £20,444) over the lifetime of the simulated cohort. Optical coherence tomography dominated the other tests or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds (£20,000) across the scenarios explored., Limitations: The diagnostic performance may be different in an unselected population without any history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration; the prediction model did not include genetic profile data, which might have improved the discriminatory performance., Conclusions: Optical coherence tomography was the most accurate in diagnosing conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Economic modelling suggests that optical coherence tomography monitoring is cost-effective and leads to earlier diagnosis of and treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients being treated for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in their first eye., Future Work: Future works should investigate the role of home monitoring, improved risk prediction models and impact on long-term visual outcomes., Study Registration: This study was registered as ISRCTN48855678., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of routinely used tests of visual function and retinal morphology compared with fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) to detect onset of active macular neovascularization in unaffected fellow eyes of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD)., Design: Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study conducted in 24 eye clinics in the United Kingdom over 3 years., Participants: Older adults (>50 years) with recently diagnosed unilateral nAMD with a fellow (study) eye free of nAMD., Methods: Self-reported vision, Amsler, clinic-measured visual acuity (VA), fundus assessment, and spectral domain OCT. The reference standard is FFA., Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of the 5 index tests., Results: Of 552 participants monitored for up to 3 years, 145 (26.3%) developed active nAMD in the study eye, of whom 120 had an FFA at detection and constituted the primary analysis cohort. Index test positives at nAMD detection in those confirmed by FFA were self-reported vision much worse (5), distortion on Amsler (33), 10-letter decrease in acuity from baseline (36), fundus examination (64), and OCT (110). Percentage index test sensitivities were: self-reported vision 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-9.8); Amsler 33.7 (95% CI, 25.1-43.5); VA 30.0 (95% CI, 22.5-38.7); fundus examination 53.8 (95% CI, 44.8-62.5); and OCT 91.7 (95% CI, 85.2-95.6). All 5 index test specificities were high at 97.0 (95% CI, 94.6-98.5), 81.4 (95% CI, 76.4-85.5), 66.3 (95% CI, 61.0-71.1), 97.6 (95% CI, 95.3-98.9), and 87.8 (95% CI, 83.8-90.9), respectively. The combination of OCT with one other index test that was a secondary outcome measure increased sensitivity marginally and decreased specificity for all combinations except fundus examination., Conclusions: Tests of self-reported change in vision, unmasking of new distortion, measurements of acuity, and fundus checks to diagnose active nAMD performed poorly in contrast to OCT. Our findings support a change to guidelines in clinical practice to monitor for onset of nAMD., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early and accurate acute kidney injury (AKI) detection may improve patient outcomes and reduce health service costs. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of NephroCheck and NGAL (urine and plasma) biomarker tests used alongside standard care, compared with standard care to detect AKI in hospitalised UK adults., Methods: A 90-day decision tree and lifetime Markov cohort model predicted costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from a UK NHS perspective. Test accuracy was informed by a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clinical trial and observational data informed the link between AKI and health outcomes, health state probabilities, costs and utilities. Value of information (VOI) analysis informed future research priorities., Results: Under base case assumptions, the biomarker tests were not cost-effective with ICERs of £105,965 (NephroCheck), £539,041 (NGAL urine BioPorto), £633,846 (NGAL plasma BioPorto) and £725,061 (NGAL urine ARCHITECT) per QALY gained compared to standard care. Results were uncertain, due to limited trial data, with probabilities of cost-effectiveness at £20,000 per QALY ranging from 0 to 99% and 0 to 56% for NephroCheck and NGAL tests respectively. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was £66 M, which demonstrated that additional research to resolve decision uncertainty is worthwhile., Conclusions: Current evidence is inadequate to support the cost-effectiveness of general use of biomarker tests. Future research evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of test guided implementation of protective care bundles is necessary. Improving the evidence base around the impact of tests on AKI staging, and of AKI staging on clinical outcomes would have the greatest impact on reducing decision uncertainty., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Study Question: What are couples' preferences for fresh embryo transfer versus freezing of all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer and the associated clinical outcomes that may differentiate them?, Summary Answer: Couples' preferences are driven by anticipated chances of live birth, miscarriage, neonatal complications, and costs but not by the differences in the treatment process (including delay of embryo transfer linked to frozen embryo transfer and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) associated with fresh embryo transfer)., What Is Known Already: A policy of freezing all embryos followed by transfer of frozen embryos results in livebirth rates which are similar to or higher than those following the transfer of fresh embryos while reducing the risk of OHSS and small for gestational age babies: it can, however, increase the risk of pre-eclampsia and large for gestational age offspring. Hence, the controversy continues over whether to do fresh embryo transfer or freeze all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer., Study Design, Size, Duration: We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) technique to survey infertile couples between August 2018 and January 2019., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We asked IVF naïve couples attending a tertiary referral centre to independently complete a questionnaire with nine hypothetical choice tasks between fresh and frozen embryo transfer. The alternatives varied across the choice occurrences on several attributes including efficacy (live birth rate), safety (miscarriage rate, neonatal complication rate), and cost of treatment. We assumed that a freeze-all strategy prolonged treatment but reduced the risk of OHSS. An error components mixed logit model was used to estimate the relative value (utility) that couples placed on the alternative treatment approaches and the attributes used to describe them. Willingness to pay and marginal rates of substitution between the non-cost attributes were calculated. A total of 360 individual questionnaires were given to 180 couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 212 were completed and returned Our study population included 3 same sex couples (2 females and 1 male) and 101 heterosexual couples. Four questionnaires were filled by one partner only. The response rate was 58.8%., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Couples preferred both fresh and frozen embryo transfer (odds ratio 27.93 and 28.06, respectively) compared with no IVF treatment, with no strong preference for fresh over frozen. Couples strongly preferred any IVF technique that offered an increase in live birth rates by 5% (P = 0.006) and 15% (P < 0.0001), reduced miscarriage by 18% (P < 0.0001) and diminished neonatal complications by 10% (P < 0.0001). Respondents were willing to pay an additional £2451 (95% CI 604 - 4299) and £761 (95% CI 5056-9265) for a 5 and 15% increase in the chance of live birth, respectively, regardless of whether this involved fresh or frozen embryos. They required compensation of £5230 (95% CI 3320 - 7141) and £13 245 (95% CI 10 110-16 380) to accept a 10 and 25% increase in the risk of neonatal complications, respectively (P < 0.001). Results indicated that couples would be willing to accept a 1.26% (95% CI 1.001 - 1.706) reduction in the live birth rate for a 1% reduction in the risk of neonatal complications per live birth. Older couples appeared to place less emphasis on the risk of neonatal complications than younger couples., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: DCEs can elicit intentions which may not reflect actual behaviour. The external validity of this study is limited by the fact that it was conducted in a single centre with generous public funding for IVF. We cannot rule out the potential for selection or responder bias., Wider Implications of the Findings: If a strategy of freeze all was to be implemented it would appear to be acceptable to patients, if either success rates can be improved or neonatal complications reduced. Live birth rates, neonatal complication rates, miscarriage rates, and cost are more likely to drive their preferences than a slight delay in the treatment process. The results of this study have important implications for future economic evaluations of IVF, as they suggest that the appropriate balance needs to be struck between success and safety. A holistic approach incorporating patient preferences for expected clinical outcomes and risks should be taken into consideration for individualized care., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No external funding was sought for this study. A.M. is the chief investigator of the randomized controlled trial 'Freeze all'. S.B. is an Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Graham Scotland reports non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis, sub-optimal fluid management has been linked with hospitalisation, cardiovascular complications and death. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness using multiple-frequency bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard fluid management based on clinical judgment., Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare expected costs, outcomes and quality adjusted life years of the alternative management strategies. The relative effectiveness of the bioimpedance guided approach was informed by a systematic review of clinical trials, and focussed reviews were conducted to identify baseline event rates, costs and health state utility values for application in the model. The model was analysed probabilistically and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base., Results: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard management was £16,536 per QALY gained. There was a 59% chance of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY. Form the VOI analysis, the theoretical upper bound on the value of further research was £53 million. The value of further research was highest for parameters relating to the relative effectiveness of bioimpedance guided management on final health outcomes., Conclusions: Multiple frequency bioimpedance testing may offer a cost-effective approach to improve fluid management in patients with CKD on dialysis, but further research would be of value to reduce the current uncertainties.

Management of intermittent allergic rhinitis (IAR) is suboptimal in the UK. An Australian community pharmacy-based intervention has been shown to help patients better self-manage their IAR. We conducted a pilot cluster RCT in 12 Scottish community pharmacies to assess transferability of the Australian intervention. Trained staff in intervention pharmacies delivered the intervention to eligible customers (n = 60). Non-intervention pharmacy participants (n = 65) received usual care. Outcome measures included effect size of change in the mini-Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (miniRQLQ) between baseline, 1-week and 6-week follow-up. Trial procedures were well received by pharmacy staff, and customer satisfaction with the intervention was high. The standardised effect size for miniRQLQ total score was -0.46 (95% CI, -1.05, 0.13) for all participants and -0.14 (95% CI,-0.86, 0.57) in the complete case analysis, suggesting a small overall treatment effect in the intervention group. A full-scale RCT is warranted to fully evaluate the effectiveness of this service.

Background: Retained placenta following vaginal delivery is a major cause of postpartum haemorrhage. Currently, the only effective treatments for a retained placenta are the surgical procedures of manual removal of placenta (MROP) and uterine curettage, which are not universally available, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of the trial was to determine whether sublingual nitroglycerin spray was clinically effective and cost-effective for medical treatment of retained placenta following vaginal delivery., Methods and Findings: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was undertaken between October 2014 and July 2017 at 29 delivery units in the UK (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle, Preston, Warrington, Chesterfield, Crewe, Durham, West Middlesex, Aylesbury, Furness, Southampton, Bolton, Sunderland, Oxford, Nottingham [2 units], Burnley, Chertsey, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesborough, Chester, Darlington, York, Reading, Milton Keynes, Telford, Frimley). In total, 1,107 women with retained placenta following vaginal delivery were recruited. The intervention was self-administered 2 puffs of sublingual nitroglycerin (800 μg; intervention, N = 543) or placebo spray (control, N = 564). The primary clinical outcome was the need for MROP, assessed at 15 minutes following administration of the intervention. Analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary safety outcome was measured blood loss between study drug administration and transfer to the postnatal ward or other clinical area. The primary patient-sided outcomes were satisfaction with treatment and side-effect profile, assessed by questionnaires pre-discharge and 6 weeks post-delivery. Secondary clinical outcomes were measured at 5 and 15 minutes after study drug administration and prior to hospital discharge. There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference in need for MROP by 15 minutes (primary clinical outcome, 505 [93.3%] for nitroglycerin versus 518 [92.0%] for placebo, odds ratio [OR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.98-1.04], p = 0.393) or blood loss (<500 ml: nitroglycerin, 238 [44.3%], versus placebo, 249 [44.5%]; 500 ml-1,000 ml: nitroglycerin, 180 [33.5%], versus placebo, 224 [40.0%]; >1,000 ml: nitroglycerin, 119 [22.2%], versus placebo, 87 [15.5%]; ordinal OR 1.14 [95% CI 0.88-1.48], p = 0.314) or satisfaction with treatment (nitroglycerin, 288 [75.4%], versus placebo, 303 [78.1%]; OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.62-1.22], p = 0.411) or health service costs (mean difference [£] 55.3 [95% CI -199.20 to 309.79]). Palpitations following drug administration were reported more often in the nitroglycerin group (36 [9.8%] versus 15 [4.0%], OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.40-4.84], p = 0.003). There were 52 serious adverse events during the trial, with no statistically significant difference in likelihood between groups (nitroglycerin, 27 [5.0%], versus placebo, 26 [4.6%]; OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.54-2.38], p = 0.747). The main limitation of our study was the low return rate for the 6-week postnatal questionnaire. There were, however, no differences in questionnaire return rates between study groups or between women who did and did not have MROP, with the patient-reported use of outpatient and primary care services at 6 weeks accounting for only a small proportion (approximately 5%) of overall health service costs., Conclusions: In this study, we found that nitroglycerin is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective as a medical treatment for retained placenta, and has increased side effects, suggesting it should not be used. Further research is required to identify an effective medical treatment for retained placenta to reduce the morbidity caused by this condition, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where surgical management is not available., Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN88609453 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02085213., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FCD is named as Principal Investigator on government and charitable research grants to their institution which aim to improve pregnancy outcome. JEN is named as Principal Investigator on government and charitable research grants to their institution which aim to improve pregnancy outcome. In the last three years JEN has provided consultancy to pharma companies GSK and Dilafor; my institution was renumerated for this. JEN's institution has received travel and subsistence expenses from Merck to facilitate them speaking at a Merck sponsored symposium on metformin. JEN is on Subpanel A1 for REF, and on a Wellcome Trust Science interview panel, and receive personal renumeration for each. KFC is named as CoInvestigator on a charitable research grant about coronary syndrome. None of the other co-authors have declared any competing interests.

Background: Retained placenta is associated with postpartum haemorrhage and can lead to significant maternal morbidity if untreated. The only effective treatment is the surgical procedure of manual removal of placenta, which is costly, requires skilled staff, requires an operative environment and is unpleasant for women. Small studies suggest that glyceryl trinitrate may be an effective medical alternative., Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate spray compared with placebo in reducing the need for manual removal of placenta in women with retained placenta after vaginal delivery following the failure of current management., Design: A group-sequential randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial with a cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: There were 29 obstetric units in the UK involved in the study., Participants: There were 1107 women (glyceryl trinitrate group, n  = 543; placebo group, n  = 564) randomised between October 2014 and July 2017., Interventions: Glyceryl trinitrate spray was administered to 541 women in the intervention group, and a placebo was administered to 563 women in the control group., Main Outcome Measures: Four primary outcomes were defined: (1) clinical - the need for manual removal of placenta, (2) safety - measured blood loss, (3) patient sided - satisfaction with treatment and side effects and (4) economic - cost-effectiveness of both treatments using the UK NHS perspective. Secondary clinical outcomes included a > 15% decrease in haemoglobin level, time from randomisation to delivery of placenta in theatre, the need for earlier manual removal of placenta than planned, increase in heart rate or decrease in blood pressure, requirement for blood transfusion, requirement for general anaesthesia, maternal pyrexia, and sustained uterine relaxation requiring additional uterotonics., Results: No difference was observed between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group for the placenta remaining undelivered within 15 minutes of study treatment (93.3% vs. 92%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.04; p  = 0.393). There was no difference in blood loss of > 1000 ml between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group (22.2% vs. 15.5%; odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.48; p  = 0.314). Palpitations were more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group after taking the study drug (9.8% vs. 4.0%; odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 4.84; p  = 0.003). There was no difference in any other measures of patient satisfaction between the groups. There was no difference in costs to the health service between groups (mean difference £55.30, 95% confidence interval -£199.20 to £309.79). Secondary outcomes revealed that a fall in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or an increase in heart rate, was more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 3.7 to 6.4; p  < 0.001). The need for a blood transfusion was also more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.25; p  = 0.033)., Conclusions: Glyceryl trinitrate spray did not increase the delivery of retained placenta within 15 minutes of administration when compared with the placebo, and was not cost-effective for medical management of retained placenta. More participants reported palpitations and required a blood transfusion in the glyceryl trinitrate group. Further research into alternative methods of medical management of retained placenta is required., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88609453., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Fiona C Denison has received funding from Dilafor AB (Solna, Sweden) outside the submitted work. Jane E Norman has received funding from Dilafor AB and GlaxoSmithKline plc (Middlesex, UK) outside the submitted work and declares membership of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Maternal Newborn and Child Health Panel. Jane Norman was a member of the HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Editorial Board. John Norrie declares grants from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh during the conduct of the study and membership of the following NIHR boards: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decision-making Committee, HTA Commissioning Board, HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (Expression of Interest), HTA Funding Boards Policy Group, HTA General Board, HTA post-board funding teleconference, NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee, NIHR HTA and EME Editorial Board and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel. Julia Lawton declares membership of the HTA General Board.