Search

We assessed efficacy and effectiveness of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions in improving symptom control, functional exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL) in people living with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). We summarised evidence from three previous reviews (to June 2014) and conducted an updated search of nine databases and grey literature (2011–2019) (registration: CRD42017065933) for prospective studies of interventions aimed to alleviate symptoms, improve QoL or functional exercise capacity in fibrotic ILD. Data were synthesised through narrative synthesis or meta-analysed as appropriate. Forty-seven studies with 2527 participants were included. From 22 pharmacological studies of 11 different interventions (n=1683), the most tested interventions were bosentan and sildenafil. From 25 nonpharmacological studies, the most tested intervention was for pulmonary rehabilitation/exercise training (PR) (22 studies, n=748). There was an improvement in 6-min walk distance immediately following PR (six studies; n=200, mean difference (MD) (95% CI) 39.9 m (18.2 to 61.5)), but not longer term (3 or 6 months, four studies; n=147, MD 5.3 m (−12.9 to 23.4). Multiple, varied outcome measures were used (e.g. 37 studies assessing dyspnoea used 10 different scales with a lack of reporting of rate of deterioration in outcomes). Evidence gap mapping highlighted the most and least researched symptoms, as dyspnoea and cough, respectively. This evidence synthesis highlights overwhelmingly that the most researched symptom is dyspnoea and the strongest evidence base is for short-term PR. The least researched symptom was cough. Research going forward must focus on prioritising and standardising meaningful outcomes and focussing interventions on neglected symptoms., Cough is a neglected symptom in ILD. Future research must prioritise and standardise meaningful outcomes, and focus interventions on neglected symptoms while ensuring dyspnoea is prioritised as a primary end-point for future studies. https://bit.ly/2RNg9KH

Background Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of visual loss in older people. Advanced AMD takes two forms, neovascular (wet) and atrophic (dry). Stargardt disease (STGD) is the commonest form of inherited macular dystrophy. Objective To carry out a systematic review of treatments for dry AMD and STGD, and to identify emerging treatments where future NIHR research might be commissioned. Design Systematic review. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library from 2005 to 13 July 2017 for reviews, journal articles and meeting abstracts. We looked for studies of interventions that aim to preserve or restore vision in people with dry AMD or STGD. The most important outcomes are those that matter to patients: visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, reading speed, ability to drive, adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, progression of disease and patient preference. However, visual loss is a late event and intermediate predictors of future decline were accepted if there was good evidence that they are strong predictors of subsequent visual outcomes. These include changes detectable by investigation, but not necessarily noticed by people with AMD or STGD. ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization search portal and the UK Clinical Trials gateway were searched for ongoing and recently completed clinical trials. Results The titles and abstracts of 7948 articles were screened for inclusion. The full text of 398 articles were obtained for further screening and checking of references and 112 articles were included in the final report. Overall, there were disappointingly few good-quality studies (including of sufficient size and duration) reporting useful outcomes, particularly in STGD. However we did identify a number of promising research topics, including drug treatments, stem cells, new forms of laser treatment, and implantable intraocular lens telescopes. In many cases, research is already under way, funded by industry or governments. Limitations In AMD, the main limitation came from the poor quality of much of the evidence. Many studies used VA as their main outcome despite not having sufficient duration to observe changes. The evidence on treatments for STGD is sparse. Most studies tested interventions with no comparison group, were far too short term, and the quality of some studies was poor. Future work We think that the topics on which the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficacy Mechanism and Evaluation (EME) programmes might consider commissioning primary research are in STGD, a HTA trial of fenretinide (ReVision Therapeutics, San Diego, CA, USA), a visual cycle inhibitor, and EME research into the value of lutein and zeaxanthin supplements, using short-term measures of retinal function. In AMD, we suggest trials of fenretinide and of a potent statin. There is epidemiological evidence from the USA that the drug, levodopa, used for treating Parkinson’s disease, may reduce the incidence of AMD. We suggest that similar research should be carried out using the large general practice databases in the UK. Ideally, future research should be at earlier stages in both diseases, before vision is impaired, using sensitive measures of macular function. This may require early detection of AMD by screening. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038708. Funding The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Venetoclax is licensed to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) ID944, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AbbVie, the manufacturer, to submit evidence on the use of venetoclax, within its licensed indication. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), Warwick Evidence, was asked to provide an independent and critical review of the submitted evidence. Evidence came from three single-arm trials in CLL patients with or without 17p deletion [del(17p])/TP53 chromosomal abnormalities. The anticipated licensed indication specified that venetoclax-eligible del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to, or be deemed unsuitable for, B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy, and that non-del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to both chemoimmunotherapy and BCRi therapy. The three trials were heterogeneous in terms of both del(17p)/TP53 status and previous exposure to BCRi therapy. The M13-982 study investigated 158 R/R CLL patients with the 17p deletion, but only a small number had received previous BCRi therapy; the M12-175 study investigated 67 patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, some with the 17p deletion, but very few previously treated with BCRi therapy; and the M14-032 study included 105 patients previously treated with BCRi therapy (either idelalisib or ibrutinib), some of whom had unknown mutation status. The ERG concluded that the study populations did not directly conform to those specified in the licensed indication or in the NICE scope. Outcomes reported included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); adverse events were reported for the pooled population of all three studies, as well as separately for each study. The median PFS was 41.4 and 27.2 months among patients in the M12-175 and M13-982 trials, respectively, whereas the median PFS was not reached in the M14-032 trial. Some results were designated academic in confidence and cannot be reported here. The submission provided a de novo partitioned survival cost-effectiveness model with three health states: pre-progression, post-progression and dead. Transition probabilities between health states were estimated using Weibull models for PFS and OS. The ERG judged the model structure to be appropriate. Venetoclax was compared with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with or without del(17p)/TP53 mutation status, and with palliative care (PC). To populate the del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax arm, the submission pooled del(17p)/TP53 patients from all three studies and fitted Weibull models for PFS and OS. PFS and OS models for non-del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax patients were obtained by applying hazard ratios (HRs) to the del(17p)/TP53 OS and PFS models, derived using Cox’s regression analysis comparing del(17p)/TP53 and non-del(17p)/TP53 patients pooled from the M14-032 and M12-175 studies. The ERG expressed reservations about the company’s pooling procedure, but acknowledged its expedience given the small evidence base. For the BSC comparator arm, the submission used the rituximab + placebo arm from a randomised controlled trial comparing idelalisib + rituximab versus placebo + rituximab (‘study 116’). Weibull regression data for OS and PFS were taken from the idelalisib STA (ID764) submitted by Gilead to NICE. The ERG considered the use of the study 116 rituximab arm to be inconsistent with the licensed indication for venetoclax because these patients had neither not responded to nor were inappropriate for BCRi therapy, being eligible to be randomised to idelalisib. Another difficulty was the requirement for a technical correction in survival analysis because of considerable switching from rituximab to idelalisib. The ERG considered that post-progression survival of patients from the idelalisib arm of study 116 provided a more appropriate representation of BSC since these patients had not responded to BCRi therapy, consistent with venetoclax’s licensed indication. For PC, the company submission used data from the UK CLL Forum. The company’s base-case analysis indicated that venetoclax was clinically effective, but the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for del(17p)/TP53 (£39,940/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and non-del(17p)/TP53 (£47,370/QALY gained) patients were well above the NICE threshold of £20,000–30,000/QALY. The ERG identified two errors in the implementation of the company’s parametric models—one related to the implementation of HRs, and the other to the derivation of the Weibull shape parameters obtained from the Gilead idelalisib submission. The ERG made plausible adjustments to the company’s base-case and corrected errors, resulting in a reduced estimate of the cost effectiveness of venetoclax in non-del(17p)/TP53 and del(17p)/TP53 indications; in the ERG’s preferred base case, using post-progression survival of patients in the idelalisib arm of study 116 as the BSC comparator, deterministic ICERs were higher than the company’s base-case for both indications: £57,476/QALY gained for del(17p)/TP53 and £77,779/QALY gained for non-del(17p)/TP53. The NICE Appraisal Committee’s preliminary recommendation was that venetoclax used within its licensed indication should not be recommended for use in the National Health Service (NHS). In response to the preliminary recommendation, the company submitted new analyses; however, at a subsequent appraisal committee meeting, the original recommendation was upheld and the committee concluded there were large uncertainties around the clinical effectiveness of venetoclax and BSC, and that under the committee’s preferred assumptions, the ICERs were higher than those generally considered cost effective, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The company submitted further evidence, and the final guidance recommended venetoclax for use with the Cancer Drugs Fund for the two populations in this technology appraisal. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-017-0599-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Objective To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany/Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin. Sources MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions. Methods Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers. Results We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP). Limitations There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking. Conclusions Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background and Objectives: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic condition leading to lung damage and deterioration in lung function. Following the availability of two new drugs, nintedanib and pirfenidone, a number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) of randomised controlled trials have been published which have conducted indirect comparisons on the two drugs. Differing recommendations from these studies are potentially confusing to clinicians and decision-makers. We aimed to systematically review published NMAs of IPF treatments, to compare their findings and summarise key recommendations. Materials and Methods: We systematically reviewed (PROSPERO: CRD42017072876) six eligible NMAs and investigated the differences in their findings with respect to key endpoints. We focused on differences in head-to-head comparisons between nintedanib and pirfenidone. Results: The NMAs were broadly consistent, with most differences being explained by model choice, endpoint definitions, inclusion of different studies, different follow-up durations, and access to unpublished data. A substantive difference remained, however, in the change from baseline forced vital capacity (FVC). One NMA favoured nintedanib, another found no statistical difference, whilst others did not conduct the analysis. These differences can be attributed to the choice of methodology, the use of the standardised mean difference (SMD) scale, and population heterogeneity. Conclusions: NMA methods facilitated the comparison of nintedanib and pirfenidone in the absence of a head-to-head trial. However, further work is needed to determine whether the trial populations are homogeneous and whether the SMD is appropriate in this population. Differences in patient characteristics may obscure the difference in treatment effects. To assist decision-makers, an exploration of efficacy in real-world populations may be prudent.

Purpose\ud \ud To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice.

Purpose Osteochondral allografts (OCA) consist of a layer of hyaline cartilage and a layer of underlying bone. They are used to repair combined defects of articular cartilage and bone. Such defects often occur in people far too young to have knee arthroplasty, for whom the main alternative to OCA is conservative symptomatic care, which will not prevent development of osteoarthritis. The aim of this report was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Methods Systematic review of evidence on clinical effectiveness and economic modelling. Results The evidence on osteochondral allograft transplantation comes from observational studies, but often based on good quality prospective registries of all patients having such surgery. Without controlled trials, it was necessary to use historical cohorts to assess the effect of osteochondral grafts. There is good evidence that OCA are clinically effective with a high graft survival rate over 20 years. If an OCA graft fails, there is some evidence that revision with a second OCA is also effective, though less so than primary OCA. Economic modelling showed that osteochondral allograft transplantation was highly cost-effective, with costs per quality adjusted life year much lower than many other treatments considered cost effective. Conclusions Osteochondral allograft transplantation appears highly cost-effective though the cost per quality adjusted life year varies according to the widely varying costs of allografts. Based on one small study, revision OCA also appears very cost-effective, but more evidence is needed. Level of evidence II. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00167-019-05392-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) after meniscal injury and subsequent meniscectomy. Methods Systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Results There is considerable evidence from observational studies, of improvement in symptoms after meniscal allograft transplantation, but we found only one small pilot trial with a randomised comparison with a control group that received non-surgical care. MAT has not yet been proven to be chondroprotective. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not possible due to a lack of data on the effectiveness of MAT compared to non-surgical care. Conclusion The benefits of MAT include symptomatic relief and restoration of at least some previous activities, which will be reflected in utility values and hence in quality-adjusted life years, and in the longer term, prevention or delay of osteoarthritis, and avoidance or postponement of some knee replacements, with resulting savings. It is likely to be cost-effective, but this cannot be proven on the basis of present evidence. Level of evidence IV. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00167-019-05504-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of this systematic review is to look at the barriers to uptake and interventions to improve uptake of postnatal screening in women who have had gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Increasing postnatal screening rates could lead to timely interventions that could reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the associated long-term health complications, and the financial burden of T2DM. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL and the Cochrane library databases were searched using well-defined search terms. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify relevant manuscripts. Data extractions and quality assessments were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Eleven primary studies of various research design and three systematic reviews were included. We identified seven themes within these studies and these were described in two categories, barriers and interventions. There appeared to be no single intervention that would overcome all the identified barriers, however, reminders to women and healthcare professionals appear to be most effective. Uptake rates of testing for T2DM are low in women with GDM. Interventions developed with consideration of the identified barriers to uptake could promote greater numbers of women attending for follow-up.

Purpose To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. Methods Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Results The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly. Conclusion Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions. Level of evidence IV. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00167-019-05477-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background:\ud Age‐related macular degeneration (AMD) is a highly prevalent condition in an ever‐increasing elderly population. Although insidious in the early stages, advanced AMD (neovascular and atrophic forms) can cause significant visual disability and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The most common form, geographic atrophy, has no effective treatment to date, whereas neovascular AMD can be treated with intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (anti‐VEGF) injections. Geographic atrophy has a slow disease progression and patients tend to have preserved central vision until the final stages. This tendency, coupled with the use of modern imaging modalities, provides a large window of opportunity to intervene with validated methods to assess treatment efficacy. As geographic atrophy is an increasingly common condition with no effective intervention, many treatments are under investigation, one of which is visual cycle modulators. These medications have been shown to reduce lipofuscin accumulation in pre‐clinical studies that have led to several clinical trials, reviewed herein.\ud \ud Objectives:\ud To assess the efficacy and safety of visual cycle modulators for the prevention and treatment of geographic atrophy secondary to AMD.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Web of Science Core Collection; Scopus; Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) website; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to 11 January 2020 with no language restrictions. We also searched using the reference lists of reviews and existing studies and the Cited Reference Search function in Web of Science to identify further relevant studies.\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐randomised clinical studies (if available) that compared visual cycle modulators to placebo or no treatment (observation) in people diagnosed with AMD (early, intermediate or geographic atrophy).\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud Two authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. Both authors entered data into RevMan 5. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\ud \ud Main results:\ud We included three RCTs from the USA; one of these had clinical sites in Germany. Two studies compared emixustat to placebo while the other compared fenretinide to placebo. All assigned one study eye per participant and, combined, have a total of 821 participants with a majority white ethnicity (97.6%). All participants were diagnosed with geographic atrophy due to AMD based on validated imaging modalities. All three studies have high risk of attrition bias mainly due to ocular adverse effects of emixustat and fenretinide. We considered only one study to be adequately conducted and reported with high risk of bias in only one domain (attrition bias). We considered the other two studies to be poorly reported and to have high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias.\ud \ud People with geographic atrophy treated with emixustat may not experience a clinically important change in best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and 24 months compared to people treated with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.9 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐2.34 to 6.14, low‐certainty evidence). Emixustat may also result in little or no difference in loss of 15 ETDRS letters or more of BCVA compared with placebo at 24 months (16.4% versus 18%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.4, low‐certainty evidence). In terms of disease progression, emixustat may result in little or no difference in the annual growth rate of geographic atrophy compared with placebo (mean difference MD 0.09 mm2/year (95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.44, low‐certainty evidence).\ud \ud All three studies reported adverse events of both drugs (emixustat: moderate‐certainty evidence; fenretinide: low‐certainty evidence). The main adverse events were ocular in nature and associated with the mechanism of action of the drugs. Delayed dark adaptation (emixustat: 54.5%; fenretinide: 39.3%) and chromatopsia (emixustat: 22.6%; fenretinide: 25.2%) were the most common adverse events reported, and were the most prevalent reasons for study dropout in emixustat trials. These effects were dose‐dependent and resolved after drug cessation. No specific systemic adverse events were considered related to emixustat; only pruritus and rash were considered to be due to fenretinide. One emixustat study reported six deaths, none deemed related to the drug.\ud \ud None of the included RCTs reported the other pre‐specified outcomes, including proportion of participants losing 10 letters or more, and mean change in macular sensitivity. We planned to investigate progression to advanced AMD (geographic atrophy or neovascular AMD) in prevention studies, including participants with early or intermediate AMD, but we identified no such studies.\ud \ud Two of the included studies reported an additional outcome ‐ incidence of choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) ‐ that was not in our published protocol. CNV onset may be reduced in those treated with emixustat but the evidence was uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.65, low‐certainty evidence), or fenretinide (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98, low‐certainty evidence) compared to placebo. A dose‐dependent relationship was observed with emixustat.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud There is limited evidence to support the use of visual cycle modulators (emixustat and fenretinide) for the treatment of established geographic atrophy due to AMD. The possible reduction in the incidence of CNV observed with fenretinide, and to a lesser extent, emixustat, requires formal assessment in focused studies.

BackgroundInitial treatment for early breast cancer is usually either breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. After BCS, whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A potential alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy delivered by the INTRABEAM®Photon Radiotherapy System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to the tissue adjacent to the resection cavity at the time of surgery.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer during surgical removal of the tumour.Data sourcesElectronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to March 2014 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and the manufacturer’s submission were also searched. The advisory group was contacted to identify additional evidence.MethodsSystematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Clinical effectiveness studies were included if they were carried out in patients with early operable breast cancer. The intervention was the INTRABEAM system, which was compared with WB-EBRT, and study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled clinical trials could be considered if data from available RCTs were incomplete (e.g. absence of data on outcomes of interest). A cost–utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM compared with WB-EBRT for early operable breast cancer.ResultsOne non-inferiority RCT, TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A), met the inclusion criteria for the review. The review found that local recurrence was slightly higher following INTRABEAM than WB-EBRT, but the difference did not exceed the 2.5% non-inferiority margin providing INTRABEAM was given at the same time as BCS. Overall survival was similar with both treatments. Statistically significant differences in complications were found for the occurrence of wound seroma requiring more than three aspirations (more frequent in the INTRABEAM group) and for a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score of grade 3 or 4 (less frequent in the INTRABEAM group). Cost-effectiveness base-case analysis indicates that INTRABEAM is less expensive but also less effective than WB-EBRT because it is associated with lower total costs but fewer total quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, sensitivity analyses identified four model parameters that can cause a switch in the treatment option that is considered cost-effective.LimitationsThe base-case result from the model is subject to uncertainty because the disease progression parameters are largely drawn from the single available RCT. The RCT median follow-up of 2 years 5 months may be inadequate, particularly as the number of participants with local recurrence is low. The model is particularly sensitive to this parameter.Conclusions and implicationsA significant investment in INTRABEAM equipment and staff training (clinical and non-clinical) would be required to make this technology available across the NHS. Longer-term follow-up data from the TARGIT-A trial and analysis of registry data are required as results are currently based on a small number of events and economic modelling results are uncertain.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006720.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Note that the economic model associated with this document is protected by intellectual property rights, which are owned by the University of Southampton. Anyone wishing to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, dismantle or create derivative work based on the economic model must first seek the agreement of the property owners.

BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a life-limiting lung disease that generally affects people over 60 years old. The main symptoms are shortness of breath and cough, and as the disease progresses there is a considerable impact on day-to-day life. Few treatments are currently available.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and an analysis of cost-effectiveness of treatments for IPF based on an economic model informed by systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness and quality of life.Data sourcesEleven electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, were searched from database inception to July 2013. Reference lists of relevant publications were also checked and experts consulted.MethodsTwo reviewers independently screened references for the systematic reviews, extracted and checked data from the included studies and appraised their risk of bias. An advisory group was consulted about the choice of interventions until consensus was reached about eligibility. A narrative review with meta-analysis was undertaken, and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for IPF. Parameter values were obtained from NMA and systematic reviews. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. The model perspective is NHS and Personal Social Services, and discount rate is 3.5% for costs and health benefits.ResultsFourteen studies were included in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which one evaluated azathioprine, threeN-acetylcysteine (NAC) (alone or in combination), four pirfenidone, one BIBF 1120, one sildenafil, one thalidomide, two pulmonary rehabilitation, and one a disease management programme. Study quality was generally good, with a low risk of bias. The current evidence suggests that some treatments appear to be clinically effective. The model base-case results show increased survival for five pharmacological treatments, compared with best supportive care, at increased cost. General recommendations cannot be made of their cost-effectiveness owing to limitations in the evidence base.LimitationsFew direct comparisons of treatments were identified. An indirect comparison through a NMA was performed; however, caution is recommended in the interpretation of these results. In relation to the economic model, there is an assumption that pharmacological treatments have a constant effect on the relative rate of per cent predicted forced vital capacity decline.ConclusionsFew interventions have any statistically significant effect on IPF and a lack of studies on palliative care approaches was identified. Research is required into the effects of symptom control interventions, in particular pulmonary rehabilitation and thalidomide. Other research priorities include a well-conducted randomised controlled trial on inhaled NAC therapy and an updated evidence synthesis once the results of ongoing studies are reported.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002116.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background:\ud There is evidence from observational studies that whole grains can have a beneficial effect on risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Earlier versions of this review found mainly short-term intervention studies. There are now longer-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) available. This is an update and expansion of the original review conducted in 2007.\ud \ud Objectives:The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of whole grain foods or diets on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible RCTs.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud We searched CENTRAL (Issue 8, 2016) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 31 August 2016), Embase (1980 to week 35 2016), and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 31 August 2016) on 31 August 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 July 2017 and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 6 July 2017. We checked reference lists of relevant articles and applied no language restrictions.\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud We selected RCTs assessing the effects of whole grain foods or diets containing whole grains compared to foods or diets with a similar composition, over a minimum of 12 weeks, on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Eligible for inclusion were healthy adults, those at increased risk of CVD, or those previously diagnosed with CVD.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud Two review authors independently selected studies. Data were extracted and quality-checked by one review author and checked by a second review author. A second review author checked the analyses. We assessed treatment effect using mean difference in a fixed-effect model and heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and the Chi2 test of heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE with GRADEpro software.\ud \ud Main results:\ud We included nine RCTs randomising a total of 1414 participants (age range 24 to 70; mean age 45 to 59, where reported) to whole grain versus lower whole grain or refined grain control groups. We found no studies that reported the effect of whole grain diets on total cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events (total myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, total stroke). All included studies reported the effect of whole grain diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease including blood lipids and blood pressure. All studies were in primary prevention populations and had an unclear or high risk of bias, and no studies had an intervention duration greater than 16 weeks.\ud \ud Overall, we found no difference between whole grain and control groups for total cholesterol (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.07 to 0.21; 6 studies (7 comparisons); 722 participants; low-quality evidence).\ud \ud Using GRADE, we assessed the overall quality of the available evidence on cholesterol as low. Four studies were funded by independent national and government funding bodies, while the remaining studies reported funding or partial funding by organisations with commercial interests in cereals.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud There is insufficient evidence from RCTs of an effect of whole grain diets on cardiovascular outcomes or on major CVD risk factors such as blood lipids and blood pressure. Trials were at unclear or high risk of bias with small sample sizes and relatively short-term interventions, and the overall quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with longer durations assessing cardiovascular events as well as cardiovascular risk factors.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the accuracy of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging for diagnosing and monitoring retinal conditions.Methods: Searches in November 2014 identified English language references. Sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and MEDION databases; reference lists of retrieved studies; and internet pages of relevant organisations, meetings, and trial registries. For inclusion, studies had to report FAF imaging accuracy quantitatively. Studies were critically appraised using QUADAS risk of bias criteria. Two reviewers conducted all review steps. Results: From 2240 unique references identified, eight primary research studies met the inclusion criteria. These investigated diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging for choroidal neovascularisation (1 study), reticular pseudodrusen (3 studies), cystoid macular oedema (2 studies) and diabetic macular oedema (2 studies). Diagnostic sensitivity of FAF imaging ranged from 32% to 100% and specificity from 34% to 100%. However, owing to methodological limitations, including high and/or unclear risks of bias, none of these studies provides conclusive evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. In most studies the patient spectrum was not reflective of those who would present in clinical practice and no studies adequately reported whether FAF images were interpreted consistently. No studies of monitoring accuracy were identified. An update in October 2016, based on MEDLINE and internet searches, identified four new studies but did not alter our conclusions.Conclusions: Robust quantitative evidence on the accuracy of FAF imaging and how FAF images are interpreted is lacking. We provide recommendations to address this.

Venetoclax is licensed to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) ID944, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AbbVie, the manufacturer, to submit evidence on the use of venetoclax, within its licensed indication. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), Warwick Evidence, was asked to provide an independent and critical review of the submitted evidence. Evidence came from three single-arm trials in CLL patients with or without 17p deletion [del(17p])/TP53 chromosomal abnormalities. The anticipated licensed indication specified that venetoclax-eligible del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to, or be deemed unsuitable for, B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy, and that non-del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to both chemoimmunotherapy and BCRi therapy. The three trials were heterogeneous in terms of both del(17p)/TP53 status and previous exposure to BCRi therapy. The M13-982 study investigated 158 R/R CLL patients with the 17p deletion, but only a small number had received previous BCRi therapy; the M12-175 study investigated 67 patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, some with the 17p deletion, but very few previously treated with BCRi therapy; and the M14-032 study included 105 patients previously treated with BCRi therapy (either idelalisib or ibrutinib), some of whom had unknown mutation status. The ERG concluded that the study populations did not directly conform to those specified in the licensed indication or in the NICE scope. Outcomes reported included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); adverse events were reported for the pooled population of all three studies, as well as separately for each study. The median PFS was 41.4 and 27.2 months among patients in the M12-175 and M13-982 trials, respectively, whereas the median PFS was not reached in the M14-032 trial. Some results were designated academic in confidence and cannot be reported here. The submission provided a de novo partitioned survival cost-effectiveness model with three health states: pre-progression, post-progression and dead. Transition probabilities between health states were estimated using Weibull models for PFS and OS. The ERG judged the model structure to be appropriate. Venetoclax was compared with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with or without del(17p)/TP53 mutation status, and with palliative care (PC). To populate the del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax arm, the submission pooled del(17p)/TP53 patients from all three studies and fitted Weibull models for PFS and OS. PFS and OS models for non-del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax patients were obtained by applying hazard ratios (HRs) to the del(17p)/TP53 OS and PFS models, derived using Cox's regression analysis comparing del(17p)/TP53 and non-del(17p)/TP53 patients pooled from the M14-032 and M12-175 studies. The ERG expressed reservations about the company's pooling procedure, but acknowledged its expedience given the small evidence base. For the BSC comparator arm, the submission used the rituximab + placebo arm from a randomised controlled trial comparing idelalisib + rituximab versus placebo + rituximab ('study 116'). Weibull regression data for OS and PFS were taken from the idelalisib STA (ID764) submitted by Gilead to NICE. The ERG considered the use of the study 116 rituximab arm to be inconsistent with the licensed indication for venetoclax because these patients had neither not responded to nor were inappropriate for BCRi therapy, being eligible to be randomised to idelalisib. Another difficulty was the requirement for a technical correction in survival analysis because of considerable switching from rituximab to idelalisib. The ERG considered that post-progression survival of patients from the idelalisib arm of study 116 provided a more appropriate representation of BSC since these patients had not responded to BCRi therapy, consistent with venetoclax's licensed indication. For PC, the company submission used data from the UK CLL Forum. The company's base-case analysis indicated that venetoclax was clinically effective, but the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for del(17p)/TP53 (£39,940/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and non-del(17p)/TP53 (£47,370/QALY gained) patients were well above the NICE threshold of £20,000-30,000/QALY. The ERG identified two errors in the implementation of the company's parametric models-one related to the implementation of HRs, and the other to the derivation of the Weibull shape parameters obtained from the Gilead idelalisib submission. The ERG made plausible adjustments to the company's base-case and corrected errors, resulting in a reduced estimate of the cost effectiveness of venetoclax in non-del(17p)/TP53 and del(17p)/TP53 indications; in the ERG's preferred base case, using post-progression survival of patients in the idelalisib arm of study 116 as the BSC comparator, deterministic ICERs were higher than the company's base-case for both indications: £57,476/QALY gained for del(17p)/TP53 and £77,779/QALY gained for non-del(17p)/TP53. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that venetoclax used within its licensed indication should not be recommended for use in the National Health Service (NHS). In response to the preliminary recommendation, the company submitted new analyses; however, at a subsequent appraisal committee meeting, the original recommendation was upheld and the committee concluded there were large uncertainties around the clinical effectiveness of venetoclax and BSC, and that under the committee's preferred assumptions, the ICERs were higher than those generally considered cost effective, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The company submitted further evidence, and the final guidance recommended venetoclax for use with the Cancer Drugs Fund for the two populations in this technology appraisal.

BackgroundNatural fluorescence in the eye may be increased or decreased by diseases that affect the retina. Imaging methods based on confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) can detect this ‘fundus autofluorescence’ (FAF) by illuminating the retina using a specific light ‘excitation wavelength’. FAF imaging could assist the diagnosis or monitoring of retinal conditions. However, the accuracy of the method for diagnosis or monitoring is unclear.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review to determine the accuracy of FAF imaging using cSLO for the diagnosis or monitoring of retinal conditions, including monitoring of response to therapy.Data sourcesElectronic bibliographic databases; scrutiny of reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews; and searches of internet pages of relevant organisations, meetings and trial registries. Databases included MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and the Medion database of diagnostic accuracy studies. Searches covered 1990 to November 2014 and were limited to the English language.Review methodsReferences were screened for relevance using prespecified inclusion criteria to capture a broad range of retinal conditions. Two reviewers assessed titles and abstracts independently. Full-text versions of relevant records were retrieved and screened by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were extracted and critically appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria (QUADAS) for assessing risk of bias in test accuracy studies by one reviewer and checked by a second. At all stages any reviewer disagreement was resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third reviewer.ResultsEight primary research studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging in retinal conditions: choroidal neovascularisation (one study), reticular pseudodrusen (three studies), cystoid macular oedema (two studies) and diabetic macular oedema (two studies). Sensitivity of FAF imaging using an excitation wavelength of 488 nm was generally high (range 81–100%), but was lower (55% and 32%) in two studies using longer excitation wavelengths (514 nm and 790 nm, respectively). Specificity ranged from 34% to 100%. However, owing to limitations of the data, none of the studies provide conclusive evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging.LimitationsNo studies on the accuracy of FAF imaging for monitoring the progression of retinal conditions or response to therapy were identified. Owing to study heterogeneity, pooling of diagnostic outcomes in meta-analysis was not conducted. All included studies had high risk of bias. In most studies the patient spectrum was not reflective of those who would present in clinical practice and no studies adequately reported how FAF images were interpreted.ConclusionsAlthough already in use in clinical practice, it is unclear whether or not FAF imaging is accurate, and whether or not it is applied and interpreted consistently for the diagnosis and/or monitoring of retinal conditions. Well-designed prospective primary research studies, which conform to the paradigm of diagnostic test accuracy assessment, are required to investigate the accuracy of FAF imaging in diagnosis and monitoring of inherited retinal dystrophies, early age-related macular degeneration, geographic atrophy and central serous chorioretinopathy.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014997.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background:\ud \ud Child overweight and obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with short- and long-term health consequences.\ud \ud Objectives:\ud \ud To assess the effects of diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obesity in preschool children up to the age of 6 years.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud \ud We performed a systematic literature search in the databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS, as well as in the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP Search Portal. We also checked references of identified trials and systematic reviews. We applied no language restrictions. The date of the last search was March 2015 for all databases.\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud \ud We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions for treating overweight or obesity in preschool children aged 0 to 6 years.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud \ud Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument, and extracted data following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information.\ud \ud Main results:\ud \ud We included 7 RCTs with a total of 923 participants: 529 randomised to an intervention and 394 to a comparator. The number of participants per trial ranged from 18 to 475. Six trials were parallel RCTs, and one was a cluster RCT. Two trials were three-arm trials, each comparing two interventions with a control group. The interventions and comparators in the trials varied. We categorised the comparisons into two groups: multicomponent interventions and dietary interventions. The overall quality of the evidence was low or very low, and six trials had a high risk of bias on individual 'Risk of bias' criteria. The children in the included trials were followed up for between six months and three years.\ud \ud In trials comparing a multicomponent intervention with usual care, enhanced usual care, or information control, we found a greater reduction in body mass index (BMI) z score in the intervention groups at the end of the intervention (6 to 12 months): mean difference (MD) -0.3 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.4 to -0.2); P < 0.00001; 210 participants; 4 trials; low-quality evidence, at 12 to 18 months' follow-up: MD -0.4 units (95% CI -0.6 to -0.2); P = 0.0001; 202 participants; 4 trials; low-quality evidence, and at 2 years' follow-up: MD -0.3 units (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1); 96 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence.\ud \ud One trial stated that no adverse events were reported; the other trials did not report on adverse events. Three trials reported health-related quality of life and found improvements in some, but not all, aspects. Other outcomes, such as behaviour change and parent-child relationship, were inconsistently measured.\ud \ud One three-arm trial of very low-quality evidence comparing two types of diet with control found that both the dairy-rich diet (BMI z score change MD -0.1 units (95% CI -0.11 to -0.09); P < 0.0001; 59 participants) and energy-restricted diet (BMI z score change MD -0.1 units (95% CI -0.11 to -0.09); P < 0.0001; 57 participants) resulted in greater reduction in BMI than the comparator at the end of the intervention period, but only the dairy-rich diet maintained this at 36 months' follow-up (BMI z score change in MD -0.7 units (95% CI -0.71 to -0.69); P < 0.0001; 52 participants). The energy-restricted diet had a worse BMI outcome than control at this follow-up (BMI z score change MD 0.1 units (95% CI 0.09 to 0.11); P < 0.0001; 47 participants). There was no substantial difference in mean daily energy expenditure between groups. Health-related quality of life, adverse effects, participant views, and parenting were not measured.\ud \ud No trial reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity, or socioeconomic effects.\ud \ud All results should be interpreted cautiously due to their low quality and heterogeneous interventions and comparators.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud \ud Muticomponent interventions appear to be an effective treatment option for overweight or obese preschool children up to the age of 6 years. However, the current evidence is limited, and most trials had a high risk of bias. Most trials did not measure adverse events. We have identified four ongoing trials that we will include in future updates of this review.\ud \ud The role of dietary interventions is more equivocal, with one trial suggesting that dairy interventions may be effective in the longer term, but not energy-restricted diets. This trial also had a high risk of bias.

Background\ud \ud Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. However, there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care settings.\ud \ud Objectives\ud \ud The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness, costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD.\ud \ud Search methods\ud \ud We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE on 30 January 2015, and Web of Science Core Collection and additional databases on the Cochrane Library on 4 December 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.\ud \ud Selection criteria\ud \ud We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of systematic risk assessment, defined as a screening-like programme involving a predetermined selection process of people, compared with opportunistic risk assessment which ranged from no risk assessment at all to incentivised case finding of CVD and related risk factors. Participants included healthy adults from the general population, including those who are at risk of CVD.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis\ud \ud Two review authors independently selected studies. One review author extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias and a second checked them. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and present this in a ’Summary of findings’ table.\ud \ud Main results\ud \ud Nine completed RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which four were cluster-randomised. We also identified five ongoing trials. The included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and the GRADE ratings of overall quality were low or very low. The length of follow-up varied from one year in four studies, three years in one study, five or six years in two studies, and ten years in two studies. Eight studies recruited participants from the general population, although there were differences in the age ranges targeted. One study recruited family members of cardiac patients (high risk assessment). There were considerable differences between the studies in the interventions received by the intervention and control groups. There was insufficient evidence to stratify by the types of risk assessment approaches.\ud \ud Limited data were available on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.02; 3 studies,103,571 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 0%), and suggest that screening has no effect on these outcomes. Data were also limited for combined non-fatal endpoints; overall, evidence indicates no difference in total coronary heart disease (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 4 studies, 5 comparisons, 110,168 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), non-fatal coronary heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 39%), total stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 2 studies, 79,631 participants, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence), and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.47; 1 study, 20,015 participants).\ud \ud Overall, systematic risk assessment appears to result in lower total cholesterol levels (mean difference (MD) -0.11 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 57%; very low-quality evidence), lower systolic blood pressure (MD -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -1.25, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 82%; very low-quality evidence) and lower diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.34 mmHg, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.93, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). One study assessed adverse effects and found no difference in psychological distress at five years (1126 participants).\ud \ud Authors' conclusions\ud \ud The results are limited by the heterogeneity between trials in terms of participants recruited, interventions and duration of follow-up. Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints. There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors. The completion of the five ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.

Background The prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a key public health priority. A number of dietary factors have been associated with modifying CVD risk factors. One such factor is dietary fibre which may have a beneficial association with CVD risk factors. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area. Objectives The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of dietary fibre for the primary prevention of CVD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1947 to January 2015) and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to January 2015) as well as two clinical trial registers in January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We selected RCTs that assessed the effects of dietary fibre compared with no intervention or a minimal intervention on CVD and related risk factors. Participants included adults who are at risk of CVD or those from the general population. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third author checked any differences. A different author checked analyses. Main results We included 23 RCTs (1513 participants randomised) examining the effect of dietary fibre. The risk of bias was unclear for most studies and studies had small sample sizes. Few studies had an intervention duration of longer than 12 weeks. There was a wide variety of fibre sources used, with little similarity between groups in the choice of intervention. None of the studies reported on mortality (total or cardiovascular) or cardiovascular events. Results on lipids suggest there is a significant beneficial effect of increased fibre on total cholesterol levels (17 trials (20 comparisons), 1067 participants randomised, mean difference -0.20 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06), and LDL cholesterol levels (mean difference -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) but not on triglyceride levels (mean difference 0.00 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05), and there was a very small but statistically significant decrease rather than increase in HDL levels with increased fibre intake (mean difference -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01). Fewer studies (10 trials, 661 participants randomised) reported blood pressure outcomes where there is a significant effect of increased fibre consumption on diastolic blood pressure (mean difference -1.77 mmHg, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.92) whilst there is a reduction in systolic blood pressure with fibre but this does not reach statistical significance (mean difference -1.92 mmHg, 95% CI -4.02 to 0.19). There did not appear to be any subgroup effects by the nature of the type of intervention (fibre supplements or provision of foods/advice to increase fibre consumption) or the type of fibre (soluble/insoluble) although the number of studies contributing to each subgroup were small. All analyses need to be viewed with caution given the risks of bias observed for total cholesterol and the statistical heterogeneity observed for systolic blood pressure. Adverse events, where reported, appeared to mostly reflect mild to moderate gastrointestinal side-effects and these were generally reported more in the fibre intervention groups than the control groups. Authors' conclusions Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, CVD clinical events. The pooled analyses for CVD risk factors suggest reductions in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol with increased fibre intake, and reductions in diastolic blood pressure. There were no obvious effects of subgroup analyses by type of intervention or fibre type but the number of studies included in each of these analyses were small. Risk of bias was unclear in the majority of studies and high for some quality domains so results need to be interpreted cautiously. There is a need for longer term, well-conducted RCTs to determine the effects of fibre type (soluble versus insoluble) and administration (supplements versus foods) on CVD events and risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD.

BACKGROUND: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are indicated for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who can benefit from amplification of sound. In resource limited health care systems, it is important that evidence regarding the benefit of BAHAs is critically appraised to aid decision-making. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To assess the clinical effectiveness of BAHAs for people with bilateral hearing impairment. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2009. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and BAHA manufacturers. EVALUATION METHOD: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment of full papers were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through narrative review with tabulation of results. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Studies suggested audiological benefits of BAHAs when compared with bone-conduction hearing aids or no aiding. A mixed pattern of results was seen when BAHAs were compared to air-conduction hearing aids. Improvements in quality of life with BAHAs were found by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic quality of life measures. Issues such as improvement of discharging ears and length of time the aid can be worn were not adequately addressed by the studies. Studies demonstrated some benefits of bilateral BAHAs. Adverse events data were limited. The quality of the studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is weak. As such, caution is indicated in the interpretation of presently available data. However, based on the available evidence, BAHAs appear to be a reasonable treatment option for people with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. Further research into the benefits of BAHAs, including quality of life, is required to reduce the uncertainty.

The aim of this systematic review, using standard methodology,was to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) for people who are bilaterally deaf. Prospective studies comparing BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing or ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs were eligible. Twelve clinical effectiveness studies were included. No eligible comparisons with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies. There appeared to be some audiological benefi ts of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs, however ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes; the limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identifi ed by a hearing-specifi c instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefi ts of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs over a ten year time horizon. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £16,344 for children and £13,281 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per QALY gained was between £118,898 and £55,424 for children and between £98,790 to £46,051 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for eight or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for eight or more hours per day. Exploratory cost effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost effective option where the benefi ts are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for eight hours or more per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs.

Objectives: The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for people with end-stage heart failure is assessed through a systematic review and economic evaluation.Methods: Systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials, quasiexperimental studies, case series, and case studies identified through searching eighteen electronic databases, bibliographies, and consultation with experts and manufacturers. Studies assessed survival, functional capacity, and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a 5-year decision analytic model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for using left ventricular assist devices compared with usual care.Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, showing that left ventricular assist devices appear beneficial, improving survival and quality of life. Adverse events are a serious concern. The economic evaluation showed that left ventricular assist devices had a cost per quality adjusted life year of £170,616. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness was not sensitive to changes in costs or utility.Conclusions: Although left ventricular assist devices appear clinically effective as destination therapy, it is unlikely they will be cost-effective unless costs decrease or the benefits of their use increase.

Background Child and adolescent overweight and obesity have increased globally, and are associated with short- and long-term health consequences. Objectives To assess the efficacy of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions delivered to parents only for the treatment of overweight and obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years. Search methods We performed a systematic literature search of databases including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS as well trial registers. We checked references of identified trials and systematic reviews. We applied no language restrictions. The date of the last search was March 2015 for all databases. Selection criteria We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions delivered to parents only for treating overweight or obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality using the GRADE instrument. Where necessary, we contacted authors for additional information. Main results We included 20 RCTs, including 3057 participants. The number of participants ranged per trial between 15 and 645. Follow-up ranged between 24 weeks and two years. Eighteen trials were parallel RCTs and two were cluster RCTs. Twelve RCTs had two comparisons and eight RCTs had three comparisons. The interventions varied widely; the duration, content, delivery and follow-up of the interventions were heterogeneous. The comparators also differed. This review categorised the comparisons into four groups: parent-only versus parent-child, parent-only versus waiting list controls, parent-only versus minimal contact interventions and parent-only versus other parent-only interventions. Trial quality was generally low with a large proportion of trials rated as high risk of bias on individual risk of bias criteria. In trials comparing a parent-only intervention with a parent-child intervention, the body mass index (BMI) z score change showed a mean difference (MD) at the longest follow-up period (10 to 24 months) of -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to 0.08); P = 0.56; 267 participants; 3 trials; low quality evidence. In trials comparing a parent-only intervention with a waiting list control, the BMI z score change in favour of the parent-only intervention at the longest follow-up period (10-12 months) had an MD of -0.10 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.01); P = 0.04; 136 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. BMI z score change of parent-only interventions when compared with minimal contact control interventions at the longest follow-up period (9 to 12 months) showed an MD of 0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.09); P = 0.81; 165 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence. There were few similarities between interventions and comparators across the included trials in the parent-only intervention versus other parent-only interventions and we did not pool these data. Generally, these trials did not show substantial differences between their respective parent-only groups on BMI outcomes. Other outcomes such as behavioural measures, parent-child relationships and health-related quality of life were reported inconsistently. Adverse effects of the interventions were generally not reported, two trials stated that there were no serious adverse effects. No trials reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects. All results need to be interpreted cautiously because of their low quality, the heterogeneous interventions and comparators, and the high rates of non-completion. Authors' conclusions Parent-only interventions may be an effective treatment option for overweight or obese children aged 5 to 11 years when compared with waiting list controls. Parent-only interventions had similar effects compared with parent-child interventions and compared with those with minimal contact controls. However, the evidence is at present limited; some of the trials had a high risk of bias with loss to follow-up being a particular issue and there was a lack of evidence for several important outcomes. The systematic review has identified 10 ongoing trials that have a parent-only arm, which will contribute to future updates. These trials will improve the robustness of the analyses by type of comparator, and may permit subgroup analysis by intervention component and the setting. Trial reports should provide adequate details about the interventions to be replicated by others. There is a need to conduct and report cost-effectiveness analyses in future trials in order to establish whether parent-only interventions are more cost-effective than parent-child interventions.

Background The treatment landscape for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a devastating lung disease, is changing. To investigate the effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis we undertook a systematic review, network meta-analysis and indirect comparison. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane library for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials of pirfenidone, nintedanib or N-acetylcysteine were eligible. Predefined processes for selecting references, extracting data and assessing study quality were applied. Our network meta-analysis of published data used a fixed effect model. For forced vital capacity measures a standardised mean difference approach was used and converted to odds ratios for interpretation. Results Of 1076 references, 67 were retrieved and 11 studies included. Studies were of reasonable size, populations were similar, and the overall quality was good. Only two treatments, pirfenidone (odds ratio 0.62, 95% credible interval 0.52, 0.74) and nintedanib (0.41, 95% credible interval 0.34, 0.51) produced a statistically significant slowing in the rate of forced vital capacity decline compared with placebo. In an indirect comparison, results indicate that nintedanib is statistically significantly better than pirfenidone in slowing forced vital capacity decline (odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.51, 0.88). Results were stable in scenario analysis and random effects models. Indirect comparisons of mortality were not statistically significant between nintedanib and pirfenidone. Conclusions Two treatments show beneficial effects and when compared indirectly nintedanib appears to have superior benefit on forced vital capacity. Limitations to indirect comparisons should be considered when interpreting these results, however, our findings can be useful to inform treatment decisions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-015-0034-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular (LV) assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant (BTT) for people with end-stage heart failure (ESHF) through a systematic review and economic evaluation. Methods and results The systematic review and economic evaluation was conducted according to internationally recognized methods. The search strategy identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and observational studies evaluating the effects of LVADs on survival, functional capacity, and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a 5-year decision analytic model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of LVADs compared with usual care. Despite the poor methodological quality of the 18 studies included, LVADs appear beneficial improving survival, functional status, and quality of life. Adverse events are a serious concern. The economic evaluation showed that LVADs had a cost per quality adjusted life year of £65 242 (95% confidence interval £34 194—364 564). Sensitivity analysis showed that post-heart transplant survival gains, pre-heart transplant patient utility, and one-off costs associated with implantation determine cost-effectiveness. Conclusion Although LVADs appear clinically effective as a BTT for people with ESHF, it is unlikely that they will be cost-effective unless costs decrease or the benefits of their use increase.

Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a life-limiting lung disease with considerable impact on patients and carers as the disease progresses. Currently few treatments are available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of available treatments for IPF. Methods Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost effectiveness were undertaken. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from inception to July 2013 and studies were assessed for eligibility against a set of pre-defined criteria. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data from included studies and appraised their quality. An advisory group was consulted about the choice of interventions. A narrative review was undertaken and where feasible fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken including a network meta-analysis (NMA). A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for IPF. Following best practice recommendations, the model perspective was of the national health service and personal social services, a discount rate of 3.5% for costs and health benefits was applied and outcomes were expressed as cost per quality adjusted life-year gained. Parameter values were obtained from the NMA and systematic reviews. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results Fourteen studies were included in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which one evaluated azathioprine, three N-acetylcysteine [NAC] (alone or in combination), four pirfenidone, one nintedanib, one sildenafil, one thalidomide, two pulmonary rehabilitation, and one a disease management programme. Study quality was generally good. Evidence suggests that some effective treatments are available. In NMA only nintedanib and pirfenidone show statistically significant improvements. The model results show increased survival for five pharmacological treatments (NAC triple therapy, inhaled NAC, nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil) compared with best supportive care, at increased cost. Only inhaled NAC was cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds but it may not be clinically effective. Conclusions Few interventions have any statistically significant effect and the cost-effectiveness of treatments is uncertain. A lack of studies on palliative care approaches was identified and there is a need for further research into pulmonary rehabilitation and thalidomide in particular. A well conducted RCT on inhaled NAC therapy should also be considered. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2050-6511-15-63) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThis assessment updates and expands on two previous technology assessments that evaluated implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF).ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs in addition to optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) for people at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT; to assess CRT with or without a defibrillator (CRT-D or CRT-P) in addition to OPT for people with HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; and to assess CRT-D in addition to OPT for people with both conditions.Data sourcesElectronic resources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2012. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and manufacturers’ submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.Review methodsInclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised through narrative review and meta-analyses. For the three populations above, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (1) ICD with standard therapy, (2) CRT-P or CRT-D with each other or with OPT and (3) CRT-D with OPT, CRT-P or ICD were eligible. Outcomes included mortality, adverse events and quality of life. A previously developed Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of OPT, ICDs, CRT-P and CRT-D in the three populations by simulating disease progression calculated at 4-weekly cycles over a lifetime horizon.ResultsA total of 4556 references were identified, of which 26 RCTs were included in the review: 13 compared ICD with medical therapy, four compared CRT-P/CRT-D with OPT and nine compared CRT-D with ICD. ICDs reduced all-cause mortality in people at increased risk of SCD, defined in trials as those with previous ventricular arrhythmias/cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI) > 3 weeks previously, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (depending on data included) or ischaemic/non-ischaemic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. There was no benefit in people scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft. A reduction in SCD but not all-cause mortality was found in people with recent MI. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £14,231 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to £29,756 per QALY for the scenarios modelled. CRT-P and CRT-D reduced mortality and HF hospitalisations, and improved other outcomes, in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony when compared with OPT. The rate of SCD was lower with CRT-D than with CRT-P but other outcomes were similar. CRT-P and CRT-D compared with OPT produced ICERs of £27,584 per QALY and £27,899 per QALY respectively. The ICER for CRT-D compared with CRT-P was £28,420 per QALY. In people with both conditions, CRT-D reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalisation, and improved other outcomes, compared with ICDs. Complications were more common with CRT-D. Initial management with OPT alone was most cost-effective (ICER £2824 per QALY compared with ICD) when health-related quality of life was kept constant over time. Costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. The ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD was £27,195 per QALY and that for CRT-D compared with OPT was £35,193 per QALY.LimitationsLimitations of the model include the structural assumptions made about disease progression and treatment provision, the extrapolation of trial survival estimates over time and the assumptions made around parameter values when evidence was not available for specific patient groups.ConclusionsIn people at risk of SCD as a result of ventricular arrhythmias and in those with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony, the interventions modelled produced ICERs of Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO number CRD42012002062.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. The effects of the available bariatric procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and most recently updated in 2009.To assess the effects of bariatric surgery for overweight and obesity, including the control of comorbidities.Studies were obtained from searches of numerous databases, supplemented with searches of reference lists and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of last search was November 2013.Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical interventions with non-surgical management of obesity or overweight or comparing different surgical procedures.Data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument.Twenty-two trials with 1798 participants were included; sample sizes ranged from 15 to 250. Most studies followed participants for 12, 24 or 36 months; the longest follow-up was 10 years. The risk of bias across all domains of most trials was uncertain; just one was judged to have adequate allocation concealment.All seven RCTs comparing surgery with non-surgical interventions found benefits of surgery on measures of weight change at one to two years follow-up. Improvements for some aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL) (two RCTs) and diabetes (five RCTs) were also found. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Five studies reported data on mortality, no deaths occurred. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in four studies and ranged from 0% to 37% in the surgery groups and 0% to 25% in the no surgery groups. Between 2% and 13% of participants required reoperations in the five studies that reported these data.Three RCTs found that laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L)(RYGB) achieved significantly greater weight loss and body mass index (BMI) reduction up to five years after surgery compared with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Mean end-of-study BMI was lower following LRYGB compared with LAGB: mean difference (MD) -5.2 kg/m² (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4 to -4.0; P0.00001; 265 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). Evidence for QoL and comorbidities was very low quality. The LRGYB procedure resulted in greater duration of hospitalisation in two RCTs (4/3.1 versus 2/1.5 days) and a greater number of late major complications (26.1% versus 11.6%) in one RCT. In one RCT the LAGB required high rates of reoperation for band removal (9 patients, 40.9%).Open RYGB, LRYGB and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) led to losses of weight and/or BMI but there was no consistent picture as to which procedure was better or worse in the seven included trials. MD was -0.2 kg/m² (95% CI -1.8 to 1.3); 353 participants; 6 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of LRYGB. No statistically significant differences in QoL were found (one RCT). Six RCTs reported mortality; one death occurred following LRYGB. SAEs were reported by one RCT and were higher in the LRYGB group (4.5%) than the LSG group (0.9%). Reoperations ranged from 6.7% to 24% in the LRYGB group and 3.3% to 34% in the LSG group. Effects on comorbidities, complications and additional surgical procedures were neutral, except gastro-oesophageal reflux disease improved following LRYGB (one RCT). One RCT of people with a BMI 25 to 35 and type 2 diabetes found laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss and improvement of diabetes compared with LSG, and had similar levels of complications.Two RCTs found that biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BDDS) resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB in morbidly obese patients. End-of-study mean BMI loss was greater following BDDS: MD -7.3 kg/m² (95% CI -9.3 to -5.4); P0.00001; 107 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence). QoL was similar on most domains. In one study between 82% to 100% of participants with diabetes had a HbA1c of less than 5% three years after surgery. Reoperations were higher in the BDDS group (16.1% to 27.6%) than the LRYGB group (4.3% to 8.3%). One death occurred in the BDDS group.One RCT comparing laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus LRYGB found BMI, excess weight loss, and rates of remission of diabetes and hypertension were similar at 12 months follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, SAEs and reoperation rates were not reported. No deaths occurred in either group.One RCT comparing laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) versus LAGB found greater improvement in weight-loss outcomes following LISG at three years follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, mortality and SAEs were not reported. Reoperations occurred in 20% of the LAGB group and in 10% of the LISG group.One RCT (unpublished) comparing laparoscopic gastric imbrication with LSG found no statistically significant difference in weight loss between groups (very low quality evidence). QoL and comorbidities were not reported. No deaths occurred. Two participants in the gastric imbrication group required reoperation.Surgery results in greater improvement in weight loss outcomes and weight associated comorbidities compared with non-surgical interventions, regardless of the type of procedures used. When compared with each other, certain procedures resulted in greater weight loss and improvements in comorbidities than others. Outcomes were similar between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy, and both of these procedures had better outcomes than adjustable gastric banding. For people with very high BMI, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB. Duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic RYGB had similar outcomes, however this is based on one small trial. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy led to better weight-loss outcomes than adjustable gastric banding after three years follow-up. This was based on one trial only. Weight-related outcomes were similar between laparoscopic gastric imbrication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in one trial. Across all studies adverse event rates and reoperation rates were generally poorly reported. Most trials followed participants for only one or two years, therefore the long-term effects of surgery remain unclear.

Background The present report was commissioned as a supplement to an existing technology assessment report produced by the Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), which evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib in patients who are either resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib. Objectives This report evaluates the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib within their licensed indications for the treatment of people with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) who are resistant to standard-dose imatinib. Data sources Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to January 2011, including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were screened, key conferences were searched, and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. Review methods This report includes systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, an independent appraisal of information submitted by drug manufacturers to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), an independent appraisal of the PenTAG economic evaluation, and new economic analyses adapting the PenTAG economic model. Standard systematic procedures involving two reviewers to maintain impartiality and transparency, and to minimise bias, were conducted. Results Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Four of these studies included new data published since the PenTAG report; all of these were in chronic-phase CML. No relevant studies on the clinical effectiveness of nilotinib were found. The clinical effectiveness studies on dasatinib [one arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT)] and high-dose imatinib (one arm of a RCT and three single-arm cohort studies) had major methodological limitations. These limitations precluded a comparison of the different arms within the RCT. Data from the studies are summarised in this report, but caution in interpretation is required. One economic evaluation was identified that compared dasatinib with high-dose imatinib in patients with chronic-phase CML who were CML resistant to standard-dose imatinib. Two industry submissions and the PenTAG economic evaluation were critiqued and differences in the assumptions and results were identified. The PenTAG economic model was adapted and new analyses conducted for the interventions dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib and the comparators interferon alfa, standard-dose imatinib, stem cell transplantation and hydroxycarbamide. The results suggest that the three interventions, dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib, have similar costs and cost-effectiveness compared with hydroxycarbamide, with a cost-effectiveness of around £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, it is not possible to derive firm conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of the three interventions owing to great uncertainty around data inputs. Uncertainty was explored using deterministic sensitivity analyses, threshold analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Limitations The paucity of good-quality evidence should be considered when interpreting this report. Conclusions This review has identified very limited new information on clinical effectiveness of the interventions over that already shown in the PenTAG report. Limitations in the data exist; however, the results of single-arm studies suggest that the interventions can lead to improvements in haematological and cytogenetic responses in people with imatinib-resistant CML. The economic analyses do not highlight any one of the interventions as being the most cost-effective; however, the analysis results are highly uncertain owing to lack of agreement on appropriate assumptions. Recommendations for future research made by PenTAG, for a good-quality RCT comparing the three treatments remain. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable sound processor that clips onto the fixture. BAHAs are suitable for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who cannot benefit fully from conventional hearing aids.To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BAHAs for people who are bilaterally deaf.Nineteen electronic resources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (inception to November 2009). Additional studies were sought from reference lists and clinical experts.Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Prospective studies of adults or children with bilateral hearing loss were eligible. Comparisons were BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing and ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs. Outcomes included hearing measures, validated measures of quality of life (QoL), adverse events and measures of cost-effectiveness. For the review of cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations were eligible.Twelve studies were included (seven cohort pre-post studies and five cross-sectional 'audiological comparison' studies). No prospective studies comparing BAHAs with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies and meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in outcome measures and patient populations. There appeared to be some audiological benefits of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs; however, ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes. The limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identified by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefits of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. Prospective case series reported between 6.1% and 19.4% loss of implants. Most participants experienced no or minor skin reactions. A decision analytic model was developed. Costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs were estimated over a 10-year time horizon, applying discount rates of 3.5%. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £ 16,409 for children and £ 13,449 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between £ 55,642 and £ 119,367 for children and between £ 46,628 and £ 100,029 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for ≥ 8 or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values (£ 500,000-1,200,000 per QALY gained) associated with a high proportion of people using BCHA. More acceptable values (£ 15,000-37,000 per QALY gained) were associated with a low proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day (compared with BAHA).The economic evaluation presented in this report is severely limited by a lack of robust evidence on the outcome of hearing aid provision. This has lead to a more restricted analysis than was originally anticipated (limited to a comparison of BAHA and BCHA). In the absence of useable QoL data, the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on potential utility gains from hearing, that been inferred using a QoL instrument rather than measures reported by hearing aid users themselves. As a result the analysis is regarded as exploratory and the reported results should be interpreted with caution.Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost-effective option where the benefits (in terms of hearing gain and probability of using of alternative aids) are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for ≥ 8 hours per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost-effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost-effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs. Further research into the non-audiological benefits of BAHAs, including QoL, is required.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lead to the same effect size and variance as non-randomised studies (NRSs) of similar policy interventions, and whether these findings can be explained by other factors associated with the interventions or their evaluation. DATA SOURCES: Two RCTs were resampled to compare randomised and non-randomised arms. Comparable field trials were identified from a series of health promotion systematic reviews and a systematic review of transition for youths with disabilities. Previous methodological studies were sought from 14 electronic bibliographic databases (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Australian Education Index, British Education Index, CareData, Dissertation Abstracts, EconLIT, Educational Resources Information Centre, International Bibliography of the Sociological Sciences, ISI Proceedings: Social Sciences and Humanities, PAIS International, PsycINFO, SIGLE, Social Science Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts) in June and July 2004. These were supplemented by citation searching for key authors, contacting review authors and searching key internet sites. REVIEW METHODS: Analyses of previous resampling studies, replication studies, comparable field studies and meta-epidemiology investigated the relationship between randomisation and effect size of policy interventions. New resampling studies and new analyses of comparable field studies and meta-epidemiology were strengthened by testing pre-specified associations supported by carefully argued hypotheses. RESULTS: Resampling studies offer no evidence that the absence of randomisation directly influences the effect size of policy interventions in a systematic way. Prior methodological reviews and meta-analyses of existing reviews comparing effects from RCTs and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs) suggested that effect sizes from RCTs and nRCTs may indeed differ in some circumstances and that these differences may well be associated with factors confounded with design. No consistent explanations were found for randomisation being associated with changes in effect sizes of policy interventions in field trials. CONCLUSIONS: From the resampling studies we have no evidence that the absence of randomisation directly influences the effect size of policy interventions in a systematic way. At the level of individual studies, non-randomised trials may lead to different effect sizes, but this is unpredictable. Many of the examples reviewed and the new analyses in the current study reveal that randomisation is indeed associated with changes in effect sizes of policy interventions in field trials. Despite extensive analysis, we have identified no consistent explanations for these differences. Researchers mounting new evaluations need to avoid, wherever possible, allocation bias. New policy evaluations should adopt randomised designs wherever possible.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. The effects of the available bariatric procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and most recently updated in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bariatric surgery for overweight and obesity, including the control of comorbidities. SEARCH METHODS: Studies were obtained from searches of numerous databases, supplemented with searches of reference lists and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of last search was November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical interventions with non‐surgical management of obesity or overweight or comparing different surgical procedures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty‐two trials with 1798 participants were included; sample sizes ranged from 15 to 250. Most studies followed participants for 12, 24 or 36 months; the longest follow‐up was 10 years. The risk of bias across all domains of most trials was uncertain; just one was judged to have adequate allocation concealment. All seven RCTs comparing surgery with non‐surgical interventions found benefits of surgery on measures of weight change at one to two years follow‐up. Improvements for some aspects of health‐related quality of life (QoL) (two RCTs) and diabetes (five RCTs) were also found. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Five studies reported data on mortality, no deaths occurred. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in four studies and ranged from 0% to 37% in the surgery groups and 0% to 25% in the no surgery groups. Between 2% and 13% of participants required reoperations in the five studies that reported these data. Three RCTs found that laparoscopic Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass (L)(RYGB) achieved significantly greater weight loss and body mass index (BMI) reduction up to five years after surgery compared with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Mean end‐of‐study BMI was lower following LRYGB compared with LAGB: mean difference (MD) ‐5.2 kg/m² (95% confidence interval (CI) ‐6.4 to ‐4.0; P < 0.00001; 265 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). Evidence for QoL and comorbidities was very low quality. The LRGYB procedure resulted in greater duration of hospitalisation in two RCTs (4/3.1 versus 2/1.5 days) and a greater number of late major complications (26.1% versus 11.6%) in one RCT. In one RCT the LAGB required high rates of reoperation for band removal (9 patients, 40.9%). Open RYGB, LRYGB and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) led to losses of weight and/or BMI but there was no consistent picture as to which procedure was better or worse in the seven included trials. MD was ‐0.2 kg/m² (95% CI ‐1.8 to 1.3); 353 participants; 6 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of LRYGB. No statistically significant differences in QoL were found (one RCT). Six RCTs reported mortality; one death occurred following LRYGB. SAEs were reported by one RCT and were higher in the LRYGB group (4.5%) than the LSG group (0.9%). Reoperations ranged from 6.7% to 24% in the LRYGB group and 3.3% to 34% in the LSG group. Effects on comorbidities, complications and additional surgical procedures were neutral, except gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease improved following LRYGB (one RCT). One RCT of people with a BMI 25 to 35 and type 2 diabetes found laparoscopic mini‐gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss and improvement of diabetes compared with LSG, and had similar levels of complications. Two RCTs found that biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BDDS) resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB in morbidly obese patients. End‐of‐study mean BMI loss was greater following BDDS: MD ‐7.3 kg/m² (95% CI ‐9.3 to ‐5.4); P < 0.00001; 107 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence). QoL was similar on most domains. In one study between 82% to 100% of participants with diabetes had a HbA1c of less than 5% three years after surgery. Reoperations were higher in the BDDS group (16.1% to 27.6%) than the LRYGB group (4.3% to 8.3%). One death occurred in the BDDS group. One RCT comparing laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus LRYGB found BMI, excess weight loss, and rates of remission of diabetes and hypertension were similar at 12 months follow‐up (very low quality evidence). QoL, SAEs and reoperation rates were not reported. No deaths occurred in either group. One RCT comparing laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) versus LAGB found greater improvement in weight‐loss outcomes following LISG at three years follow‐up (very low quality evidence). QoL, mortality and SAEs were not reported. Reoperations occurred in 20% of the LAGB group and in 10% of the LISG group. One RCT (unpublished) comparing laparoscopic gastric imbrication with LSG found no statistically significant difference in weight loss between groups (very low quality evidence). QoL and comorbidities were not reported. No deaths occurred. Two participants in the gastric imbrication group required reoperation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Surgery results in greater improvement in weight loss outcomes and weight associated comorbidities compared with non‐surgical interventions, regardless of the type of procedures used. When compared with each other, certain procedures resulted in greater weight loss and improvements in comorbidities than others. Outcomes were similar between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy, and both of these procedures had better outcomes than adjustable gastric banding. For people with very high BMI, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB. Duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic RYGB had similar outcomes, however this is based on one small trial. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy led to better weight‐loss outcomes than adjustable gastric banding after three years follow‐up. This was based on one trial only. Weight‐related outcomes were similar between laparoscopic gastric imbrication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in one trial. Across all studies adverse event rates and reoperation rates were generally poorly reported. Most trials followed participants for only one or two years, therefore the long‐term effects of surgery remain unclear.

Objectives: to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and pegaptanib for subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) associated with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD).Data sources: electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2006. Experts in the field were consulted and manufacturers’ submissions were examined.Review methods: the quality of included studies was assessed using standard methods and the clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. A model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and of pegaptanib (separately), compared with current practice or best supportive care, from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Two time horizons were adopted for each model. The first adopted time horizons determined by the available trial data. The second analysis extrapolated effects of treatment beyond the clinical trials, adopting a time horizon of 10 years.Results: the combined analysis of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pegaptanib [0.3 mg (licensed dose), 1.0 mg and 3.0 mg] versus sham injection in patients with all lesion types was reported by three publications (the VISION study). Three published RCTs of ranibizumab were identified (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS), and an additional unpublished RCT was provided by the manufacturer (PIER). Significantly more patients lost less than 15 letters of visual acuity at 12 months when taking pegaptanib (0.3 mg: 70% of patients; 1.0 mg: 71% of patients; 3.0 mg: 65% of patients) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg: 94.3–94.5%; 0.5 mg: 94.6–96.4%) than sham injection patients (55% versus pegaptanib and 62.2% versus ranibizumab) or, in the case of ranibizumab, photodynamic therapy (PDT) (64.3%). The proportion of patients gaining 15 letters or more (a clinically important outcome having a significant impact on quality of life) was statistically significantly greater in the pegaptanib group for doses of 0.3 and 1.0 mg but not for 3.0 mg, and for all ranibizumab groups compared to the sham injection groups or PDT. This was also statistically significant for patients receiving 0.5 mg ranibizumab plus PDT compared with PDT plus sham injection. Pegaptanib patients lost statistically significantly fewer letters after 12 months of treatment than the sham group [mean letters lost: 7.5 (0.3 mg), 6.5 (1.0 mg) or 10 (3.0 mg) vs 14.5 (sham)]. In the MARINA and ANCHOR trials, ranibizumab patients gained letters of visual acuity at 12 months whereas patients with sham injection or PDT lost about 10 letters (p < 0.001) and in the PIER study, ranibizumab patients lost significantly fewer than the sham injection group. Significantly fewer patients receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab deteriorated to legal blindness compared with the control groups. Adverse events were common for both pegaptanib and ranibizumab but most were mild to moderate. Drug costs for 1 year of treatment were estimated as £4626 for pegaptanib and £9134 for ranibizumab. Nondrug costs accounted for an additional £2614 for pegaptanib and £3120 for ranibizumab. Further costs are associated with the management of injectionrelated adverse events, from £1200 to £2100. For pegaptanib compared with usual care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from £163,603 for the 2-year model to £30,986 for the 10-year model. Similarly, the ICERs for ranibizumab for patients with minimally classic and occult no classic lesions, compared with usual care, ranged from £152,464 for the 2-year model to £25,098 for the 10-year model.Conclusions: Patients with AMD of any lesion type benefit from treatment with pegaptanib or ranibizumab on measures of visual acuity when compared with sham injection and/or PDT. Patients who continuedtreatment with either drug appeared to maintain benefits after 2 years of follow-up. When comparing pegaptanib and ranibizumab, the evidence was less clear due to the lack of direct comparison through head-to-head trials and the lack of opportunity for indirect statistical comparison due to heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the two drugs offered additional benefit over the comparators of usual care and PDT but at increased cost. Future research should encompass trials to compare pegaptanib with ranibizumab and bevacizumab, and to investigate the role of verteporfin PDT in combination with these drugs. Studies are also needed to assess adverse events outside the proposed RCTs, to consider the optimal dosing regimes of these drugs and the benefits of re-treatment after initial treatment, and to review costing in more detail. Health state utilities and their relationship with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, the relationship between duration of vision loss and the quality of life and functional impact of vision loss, behavioural studies of those genetically at risk are other topics requiring further research.

With a limited supply of donor hearts, individuals with end-stage heart failure have been offered hope through the use of mechanical devices. Left ventricular-assist devices (LVADs) are a technology designed to work in parallel with the heart but have yet to see widespread use since uncertainty remains as to the cost-effectiveness of this evolving new technology. We have systematically reviewed evidence of cost-effectiveness for LVADs in the bridge-to-transplant and long-term chronic support indications. A total of 18 studies reporting costs were identified. Of these, only four studies reported results in cost-effectiveness terms; two in cost per life-year saved and two in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The majority of the other studies were simple cost summations (cost per day or incremental cost) without consideration of efficacy. In the bridge-to-transplant indication, a Danish abstract reported a cost per life-year saved of DKK270k (US$48,000), a UK study reported a cost per QALY of GB pound39,787 (US$78,000) and a Canadian study reported a cost per life-year saved of Can$91,332 (US$86,000). Regarding the long-term chronic support indication, the same Canadian study reported a cost per life-year saved of Can$59,842 (US$56,000), whereas a US study reported a cost per QALY of $36,255-60,057. Assuming a willingness to pay the threshold of GB pound30,000 (US$59,000) per QALY, there is arguably stronger evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of LVAD technology for the long-term chronic support indication. However, the methodological quality of the majority of studies was poor, as was their generalizability, raising concerns over the reliability of these figures. With the limited and declining availability of donor hearts for transplantation, it appears that the future of this technology is in its use as long-term chronic support. Further analyses should be undertaken, particularly alongside randomized, controlled trials and utilizing second- and third-generation devices.

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS).Electronic databases from inception to February 2006, bibliographies of studies, and experts in the field.Studies were selected, quality assessed and data were extracted using recognised methods agreed a priori. Meta-analysis was undertaken where appropriate using the random effects model. Where data allowed, subgroup analysis was undertaken according to renal histopathology.Two systematic reviews and 11 trials were included in the clinical effectiveness review; however, the quality of reporting and methodology of the included studies was generally poor. No economic evaluations were identified. No statistically significant difference in remission rates was found between cyclophosphamide plus prednisone and prednisone alone for all children or those with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), also the time to response was statistically significantly less with cyclophosphamide (38.4 days versus 95.5 days). Remission rates were not statistically significantly different between intravenous and oral cyclophosphamide. Vomiting was common with intravenous cyclophosphamide, while pneumonia and alopecia occurred in the oral group. Ciclosporin statistically significantly increased the number of children with complete remission compared with placebo or supportive treatment, but not for the FSGS subgroup, adverse effects including infection and hypertension differed little between groups. No differences were found between azathioprine and placebo, with about 13% of each group having remission. Complete or partial remission occurred in six out of seven patients on the 18-month methylprednisolone regimen and three out of five patients on the 6-month regimen, for both groups renal function improved and adverse events such as hypertension and frequent infections occurred. Intravenous dexamethasone and methylprednisolone produced similar complete remission rates, partial remission rates, median time to response (about 10 days) and total number of adverse events, with hypertension as the most common. Six-hour urinary albumin and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio decreased statistically significantly with high-dose but not low-dose enalapril. Tuna fish oil was not associated with any statistically significant improvements in proteinuria, creatinine clearance, serum creatinine or lipid profiles compared with placebo. A very limited literature was found on costs associated with SRNS in children. The pharmaceutical cost of treatment varied considerably: an 8-week course of cyclophosphamide cost less than 6 pounds, while a course of ciclosporin cost almost 900 pounds per year. Treatment with tacrolimus, an alternative to ciclosporin, was estimated to cost in excess of 3400 pounds per year. Healthcare medical management costs were estimated; varying by treatment strategy, they ranged from 250 pounds to 930 pounds per year in patients not experiencing complications. Other longer term costs may also be incurred. Lack of data meant that cost-effectiveness modelling was not feasible.The clinical effectiveness literature on treatments for idiopathic SRNS in children is very limited. The available evidence suggests a beneficial effect of ciclosporin on remission rates and of cyclophosphamide on time to remission; however, the strength of the conclusions drawn is limited by the poor quality of the included studies. The other treatments included in this review were each evaluated by only one study, and none found a statistically significant effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically significant difference. The available data on costs and outcomes are sparse and do not permit the reliable modelling of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for SRNS at present. A modelling framework is suggested, should more relevant data become available. A well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin with other treatments in children with SRNS without genetic mutation is required.

Aims: To assess the clinical effectiveness of pegaptanib sodium and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified through searching 12 electronic databases, bibliographies and consultation with experts and manufacturers. RCTs were eligible if they assessed the effects of pegaptanib or ranibizumab with best supportive care, sham injection or photodynamic therapy (PDT) on patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation associated with wet AMD and examined outcomes including visual acuity and adverse events. Results: Three RCTs of ranibizumab (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS) and two of pegaptanib (VISION study) met the inclusion criteria. The RCTs included patients with different lesion types. The studies showed statistically significant benefit on different measures of visual acuity for patients receiving pegaptanib, ranibizumab or ranibizumab with PDT compared to control (sham injection, PDT or sham injection with PDT) after 12 months. These differences appeared to be clinically significant. Although adverse events were common among those receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab, they were considered mild to moderate in nature. Meta-analysis of ranibizumab trials and indirect comparison of the two drugs were not possible due to differences in the study populations’ lesion types. However, results from the RCTs of ranibizumab tended to show a greater effect on visual acuity than results from the RCT of pegaptanib. Conclusions: Pegaptanib and ranibizumab appear to slow or stop the progression of neovascular AMD. Uncertainty remains over the relative benefits of pegaptanib compared with ranibizumab and other unlicensed drugs (eg, Avastin), due to the nature of the evidence. Head-to-head RCTs and economic evaluations comparing these alternatives are needed.

Objectives To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation (BTT), as a bridge to myocardial recovery (BTR) or as a long-term chronic support (LTCS) for people with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). Data sources For the systematic review, electronic databases and bibliographies of related publications plus experts and manufacturers. For the economic evaluations, data originated from the systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, UK hospitals, device manufacturers and expert opinion. Review methods For the systematic review, studies were selected and assessed against a set of rigorous criteria; data were then synthesised using a narrative approach through subgroup analysis based on the indication for treatment, type of LVAD and quality of studies. The economic evaluation developed two models to evaluate the use of LVADs, first as a BTT and second as LTCS for patients suffering from ESHF. Results Sixteen studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as a BTT. Despite the poor methodological quality of the evidence, LVADs appeared beneficial compared to other treatment options (i.e. inotropic agents or usual care) or to no care (i.e. the natural history of ESHF) improving the survival of people with ESHF during the period of support and following heart transplantation. Patients supported by an LVAD appeared to have an improved functional status compared with those on usual care and experienced an improvement in their quality of life from before device implantation to the period during support. Serious adverse events are a risk for patients with an LVAD. With a scarcity of evidence directly comparing different devices, it is difficult to identify specific devices as the most clinically effective. The HeartMate LVAD is the only device that has evidence comparing it with the different alternatives, appearing to be more clinically effective than inotropic agents and usual care and as clinically effective as the Novacor device. Second generation devices, such as Jarvik 2000 and MicroMed Debakey LVADs, are early in their development but show considerable promise that should be assessed through long-term studies. Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as a BTR was limited to seven non-comparative observational studies that appeared to show that the LVADs were beneficial in providing support until myocardial recovery. It was not possible to assess whether the LVADs are more effective than other alternatives or specific devices. No evidence was found on the quality of life or functional status of patients and limited information on adverse events was reported. Six studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as an LTCS and from these it was evident that LVADs provided benefits in terms of improved survival, functional status and quality of life. Nineteen studies assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of LVADS for people with ESHF, with the majority being simple costing studies and very few studies of the cost-effectiveness of LVADs. With no relevant cost-effectiveness studies available, an economic evaluation for BTT and LTCS was developed. The economic evaluation has shown that neither LVAD indication considered, that is, BTT and LTCS, is a cost-effective use. For the HeartMate LVAD used as a BTT the cost per QALY was pound 65,242. In the less restrictive indication, LTCS, where LVADs are not just given to patients awaiting transplantation, the analysis has shown that LTCS is not cost-effective. The baseline cost per QALY of the first-generation HeartMate LVAD was pound 170,616. One- and multi-way sensitivity analysis had limited effect on the cost per QALY. A hypothetical scenario based on the cost of a second-generation MicroMed DeBakey device illustrated that a 60% improvement in survival over first-generation devices was necessary before the incremental cost-effectiveness approached pound 40,000 per QALY. Conclusions Although the review showed that LVADs are clinically effective as a BTT with ESHF, the economic evaluation indicated that they are not cost-effective. With the limited and declining availability of donor hearts for transplantation, it appears that the future of the technology is in its use as an LTCS. Further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness of LVADs for people with ESHF, assessing patient survival, functional ability, quality of life and adverse events. Evaluations of the clinical effectiveness of LVADs should include economic evaluations, as well as data on quality of life, utilities, resources and costs. A systematic review of the epidemiology of ESHF should be undertaken to assess its potential impact.

Background: obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Surgery for morbid obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. A number of procedures are available, but the effects of these surgical procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. Objectives: to assess the effects of surgery for morbid obesity. Search strategy: studies were obtained from computerized searches of multiple electronic bibliographic dababases, supplemented with hand searches of selected journals and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of the most recent searches: December 2004. Selection criteria: randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical procedures, and randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing surgery with non-surgical management for morbid obesity. Data collection and analysis: data were extracted by one reviewer and checked independently by two reviewers. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Main results: twenty-six trials were included. Two randomised controlled trials and three prospective cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical management, and 21 randomised controlled trials compared different surgical procedures. The quality of most of the trials was poor; just three trials had adequate allocation concealment. A meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in the surgical procedures performed, measures of weight change and length of follow-up. Compared with conventional management, surgery resulted in greater weight loss (21 kg weight loss at eight years versus weight gain), with improvements in quality of life and comorbidities. Some complications of surgery occurred, such as wound infection. Gastric bypass was associated with greater weight loss, better quality of life and fewer revisions, reoperations and/or conversions than gastroplasty, but had more side-effects. Greater weight loss and fewer side-effects and reoperations occurred with adjustable gastric banding than vertical banded gastroplasty, but laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty produced more patients with an excellent or good result and fewer late complications than laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Vertical banded gastroplasty was associated with greater weight loss but more vomiting than horizontal gastroplasty. Some postoperative deaths occurred in the studies. Weight loss was similar between open and laparoscopic procedures. Fewer serious complications occurred with laparoscopic surgery, although conversion to open surgery was sometimes required. Most studies found that laparoscopic surgery had a longer operative time. But, it resulted in reduced blood loss and quicker recovery. Authors' conclusions: the limited evidence suggests that surgery is more effective than conventional management for weight loss in morbid obesity. The comparative safety and effectiveness of different surgical procedures is unclear

Summary Background Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for atopic eczema, yet there is uncertainty over the frequency of their use in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness. Objectives To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of once-daily vs. more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema. Methods A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature was undertaken, together with a cost-minimization analysis. Results The review identified a sparse literature, comprising one previous systematic review and 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. RCTs were focused on potent topical corticosteroids (eight RCTs), with no trials (RCTs/controlled clinical trials) identified on mild potency products. There was broad heterogeneity in trial methods, and therefore we considered outcomes according to: (i) at least a good response or 50% improvement, and (ii) eczema rated as cleared or controlled. Studies found little difference between once-daily and more frequent use of topical corticosteroids. The literature on moderately potent and potent corticosteroids offered no basis for favouring once-daily or more frequent use, although some significant differences favouring twice-daily treatment were identified. One RCT on very potent products favoured three times daily use on the basis of clinical response, but reported no difference in the numbers with at least a good response. Given the similar outcomes seen in clinical effectiveness a cost-minimization approach was adopted to consider cost effectiveness, in order to identify the least-cost option. However, cost-minimization analysis proved complex due to wide variations in product price, with the relative cost of product comparisons by frequency proving the most important factor in determining the least-cost alternative. Conclusions This review has not identified any clear differences in outcomes between once-daily and more frequent application of topical corticosteroids. We would encourage prescribing clinicians to consider the once-daily use of topical corticosteroids when making treatment decisions for patients with atopic eczema. However, we find that the literature on clinical effectiveness is limited and a broader understanding of compliance and phobia associated with topical steroids is needed to inform on this issue.

Objectives To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the treatment of people with atopic eczema. Data sources Electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies and related papers. Experts in the field. Manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Review methods Studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. Results One RCT comparing moderately potent corticosteroids, eight RCTs comparing potent corticosteroids and one RCT comparing very potent corticosteroids were included. No RCTs or CCTs of mild corticosteroids were eligible. Most RCTs were of poor methodological quality, although two were judged to be of good quality. The only study that compared moderately potent corticosteroids found no significant difference between once- and twice-daily application. For potent corticosteroids, some statistically significant differences in numbers of patients responding to treatment were identified favouring twice-daily treatment, but these were inconsistent between physician and patient assessment and outcomes selected for analysis. Two studies found a significant improvement in some symptoms with once-daily mometasone furoate compared with twice-daily application of a different active compound, while a third study found no significant differences. One good-quality study favoured twice-daily application of fluticasone propionate ointment, while other studies found no significant difference or an improvement in one symptom but not others. The only study comparing very potent corticosteroids found a statistically significant difference in comparative clinical response in favour of three-times daily treatment, but no difference in number of patients with at least a good response. There appears to be little difference in the frequency or severity of short-term events, however data are limited. No published economic evaluations were identified. Given findings on clinical effectiveness, where outcomes from the comparators are similar, the relative cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent application of topical corticosteroids becomes a case of cost-minimisation, where the least-cost alternative should be favoured, all else being equal. Topical corticosteroid products included in this review have a wide variation in price; the cost per 30 g/30 ml varies between GBP0.60 and GBP4.88. Specific decisions on the least-cost alternative, between once-daily and more frequent application of products, will be determined by the relative price of the products being compared. Where patients can be appropriately prescribed once-daily treatment of a similarly priced product, a reduction in the quantity of topical corticosteroid used will be expected. However, issues related to pack size for prescribed products and subsequent waste (unused product) could easily erode any potential saving. The potential cost-savings on prescribed products are very small at a patient level; although given the large numbers of patients with atopic eczema, cost savings in theory could be substantial. The presence of specifically marketed 'once-daily' topical corticosteroids, which are relatively expensive (per unit price), may result in additional costs should there be a general recommendation in favour of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids, compared to more frequent use. Conclusions The literature is very limited; that available indicates the clinical effectiveness of once-daily and more frequent application of potent topical corticosteroids is very similar, but it does not offer a basis for favouring either option. The cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use will depend on the generalisability of the findings to the specific treatment decision and the relative product prices. The trials included in this review generally refer to moderate to severe atopic eczema, whereas most patients have mild disease, and furthermore most of the included trials report on potent topical corticosteroids (eight of 10 RCTs); therefore the generalisability of the findings is limited. Further research is required on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency corticosteroids, specifically on mild potency products for mild to moderate atopic eczema. Outcomes should include quality of life and compliance.

Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness\ud of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)\ud compared with multiple daily injections (MDI) in the\ud delivery of intensive insulin therapy for the treatment\ud of diabetes mellitus.\ud Data sources: Electronic databases, references of\ud retrieved articles and manufacturer submissions.\ud Experts in the field were consulted.\ud Review methods: For the systematic review of clinical\ud and cost-effectiveness, studies were assessed for\ud inclusion according to predefined criteria by two\ud reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment\ud were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a\ud second reviewer. Data on clinical effectiveness were\ud synthesised through a narrative review with full\ud tabulation of all eligible studies, with meta-analysis\ud performed where appropriate.\ud Results: Twenty studies comparing CSII with MDI\ud were identified. Quality was generally poor. In adults\ud with Type 1 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin improved\ud by 0.61% (95% CI –1.29 to 0.07) in longer term\ud studies, although this improvement was smaller when a\ud study using bovine ultralente was excluded. A reduction\ud in insulin dose with CSII of about 12 units per day\ud (–11.90, 95% CI –18.16 to 5.63) was found in shortterm\ud studies, with smaller differences in longer term\ud studies. Body weight and cholesterol levels were\ud similar between treatments. Hypoglycaemic events did\ud not differ significantly between CSII and MDI in most\ud trials, but some found fewer events with CSII and one\ud found more hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemic coma\ud with CSII. There was no consistency between the\ud studies in patient preference, but progress has been\ud made both with insulin pumps and injector pens since\ud the publication of many of the older studies. No\ud difference in glycated haemoglobin between CSII and\ud MDI was found in pregnancy; one study found less\ud insulin was required by patients with CSII, but two\ud other studies found no significant difference. One study\ud of adolescents found lower glycated haemoglobin and\ud insulin dose with CSII whereas a second study found no\ud significant difference. In CSII analogue insulin was\ud associated with lower glycated haemoglobin levels than\ud soluble insulin. No economic evaluations comparing\ud CSII with MDI were identified. The estimated\ud additional cost of CSII compared to MDI varies from\ud £1091 per annum to £1680 per annum, according to\ud the make of the insulin pump and the estimated life of\ud the device. These estimates include the costs for the\ud insulin pump, the consumables associated with delivery\ud of CSII, and an allowance for the initial education\ud required when patients switch from MDI to CSII.\ud The largest component of the annual cost for\ud CSII is the cost of consumable items (e.g. infusion\ud sets).\ud Conclusions: When compared with optimised MDI,\ud CSII results in a modest but worthwhile improvement\ud in glycated haemoglobin in adults with Type 1 diabetes.\ud It has not been possible to establish the longer term\ud benefits of such a difference in glycated haemoglobin,\ud although there is an expectation that it would be\ud reflected in a reduction in long-term complications.\ud More immediate primary benefits from CSII may be\ud associated with an impact on the incidence of\ud hypoglycaemic events and the dawn phenomenon, and\ud greater flexibility of lifestyle. However, there is limited\ud evidence on this, and information presented to offer\ud context on quality-of-life is based on testimonies from\ud those patients who have had a positive experience of\ud CSII. The estimated cost to the NHS per year for\ud CSII would be around £3.5 million in England and\ud Wales if 1% of people with Type 1 diabetes used CSII,\ud £10.5 million for 3%, and £17.5 million for 5%.\ud Further research should focus on wider benefits of\ud CSII, such as flexibility of lifestyle and quality of life,\ud and on the psychological impact of wearing a device for\ud 24 hours every day. Research into the use of CSII in\ud children of different ages is also needed.

Aims The properties of rapid-acting insulin analogues are thought to be particularly appropriate for use in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or insulin pump therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing rapid-acting insulin analogues with soluble insulin in CSII. Methods The following databases were searched (last search June 2002): MEDLINE 1985–2002; Embase 1980–2002; PubMed internet version, records added June 2001 to June 2002; Science Citation Index 1990–2002; BIOSIS 1999–2002; Web of Science Proceedings 1990–2002; and the Cochrane Library, including DARE and the HTA databases. Randomized controlled trials and crossover studies with at least 10 weeks on each treatment were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. A meta-analysis was undertaken using a random effects model. Results A significant improvement of 0.26% (95% confidence interval −0.47, −0.06%) in glycated haemoglobin was demonstrated with lispro. Some studies reported fewer hypoglycaemic episodes with analogue insulin but this varied according to the definitions used. No differences in insulin dosage or weight were seen. Two studies reported patient preference, with analogues preferred in both. The extra cost per annum ranges from £72 (at 40 units per day) to £150 (at 84 units per day). Conclusions Insulin analogues result in a modest but significant reduction in HbA1c compared with soluble insulin when used in CSII, and are preferred by patients.