Development and validation of a short version of the quality of life-DSD questionnaire for parents of young children with conditions affecting sex development.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in parents and children with conditions affecting sex development. The objective of this study was to develop short forms of HRQoL questionnaires which consist of a 63-item and 25-item parent self-report (PSR) and parent proxy-report (PPR), respectively, optimising use in routine clinic settings. METHODS: Short questionnaires were developed following exploratory factor analysis using raw data from 132 parents. Long and short PSRs were completed by 24 parents of children with conditions affecting sex development with median age of 3.6 years (range 0.1, 6.6); 21 (88%) were boys and 11 (46%) had proximal hypospadias. A subset of 19 parents completed long and short PPRs. RESULTS: Item selection based on factor loadings of >0.8 and expert consultation, produced short PSR and PPRs containing 16 and 7 items, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in 11 out of 12 (92%) scales on the PSR and 4 out of 5 (80%) scales on the PPR when comparing short and long questionnaire scores. Short and long questionnaires took <1 minute and 5 minutes for completion, respectively. Eighteen parents (75%) reported that the time taken to complete short questionnaires was acceptable; 10 (42%) preferred short questionnaires. Ten (42%) versus 6 (25%) stated a preference for completing short versus long questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Short versions were largely representative of the long questionnaires and are acceptable to evaluate psychosocial distress in young children and their caregivers. Further psychometric validation of short forms is warranted.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial. METHODS: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.

The Social and Emotional Education and Development intervention to address wellbeing in primary school age children: the SEED cluster RCT.

Background: Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being. Objective: The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils' social and emotional well-being. Design: This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package). Setting: The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools. Participants: A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland. Intervention: The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist). Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline. Results: The primary outcome, pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice. Limitations: It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection. Conclusions: This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions. Future work: Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

We studied the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) primary school intervention to see if it could improve the social and emotional well-being of pupils in Scotland. The SEED intervention is a process with several elements. We collected information from school pupils, staff and parents, and assessed if the schools involved were happy, safe and caring environments. We sought to highlight any strengths or weaknesses in how each school approaches social and emotional well-being. The SEED intervention also measures the social and emotional well-being of pupils. This includes pupils' strengths and difficulties, confidence, understanding of emotions and quality of relationships. We gave the information back to each school to help them decide what they can do to improve the social and emotional well-being of their pupils. We gave schools a guide to available resources, reviewed according to how well they are known to work elsewhere. The same social and emotional well-being measurements were repeated every 1 or 2 years, to see if any improvements had been made, and to guide any further adaptions of activities. The study ran in 38 schools over 7 years; half of the schools were randomly selected to receive the SEED intervention and half carried on as normal. Two age groups of pupils were recruited; the younger group was aged 4 or 5 years and the older group was aged 8 or 9 years at the start of the study. We found that the SEED intervention did slightly improve social and emotional well-being. Improvements were greater for older pupils, in particular for boys, and lasted beyond their transition from primary to secondary school. We also found that it was cost-effective for schools to run the SEED intervention. Schools valued the structure and shared ownership associated with the process. We concluded that the SEED intervention is an acceptable way to modestly improve pupil well-being and school ethos.

Association between event-free survival and overall survival in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Aim: This study evaluated event-free survival (EFS) as a surrogate outcome for overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). Methods: Meta-regression analyses based on a targeted literature review were used to evaluate the individual- and trial-level associations between EFS and OS. Results: In the individual-level analyses, 3-year EFS was a significant predictor of 5-year OS (p < 0.01; coefficient of determinations [R2]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68-0.91]). Additionally, there was a statistically significant association between the treatment effect on EFS and OS at the trial level (p < 0.001; R2: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.45-0.82]). Conclusion: This study demonstrates significant associations between EFS and OS and suggests that EFS is a valid surrogate for OS following neoadjuvant therapy for eTNBC.

What is this article about? Studies of cancer therapies typically use patient survival to understand whether a treatment is helpful, such as overall survival (time from treatment to death) and event-free survival (time from treatment until the cancer progresses). Only using overall survival can slow clinical trials and the ability to assess whether new treatments may be useful. This study examined whether event-free survival was a good surrogate outcome for overall survival in studies of neoadjuvant therapy for early stage, triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). Neoadjuvant therapy is used to shrink a tumor before the definitive surgery, and TNBC is a type of breast cancer lacking three common hormone receptors that treatments target. To accomplish this, we first searched for published clinical trials and observational studies that reported overall and event-free survival and extracted their data. Then we tested the association between the two survival outcomes to determine if event-free survival could be used to accurately predict overall survival. Using data from randomized clinical trials, we also tested whether a treatment's effect on event-free survival could predict its effect on overall survival. What did this study find? We found that event-free survival at three years could predict overall survival at 5 years, and that there was a meaningful relationship between a treatment's effect on event-free and overall survival for eTNBC following neoadjuvant treatment. What do the results of the study mean? The results suggest that event-free survival is an accurate and useful surrogate for overall survival following neoadjuvant treatment of eTNBC.

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography with Piflufolastat F 18 for the Initial Diagnosis of Patients with Prostate Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Piflufolastat F 18 is a novel prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer that is superior to standard of care (SOC) imaging for the initial staging of prostate cancer and the detection of biochemical recurrence. As piflufolastat F 18 has been approved in the United States (US) for this indication, this modeling study assessed the cost effectiveness of piflufolastat F 18 versus fluciclovine F-18, gallium68-PSMA-11 (PSMA 11), and SOC imaging (a mix of bone scans, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging) for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer from a US healthcare system perspective. PERSPECTIVE: A US third-party payer perspective was used, which for this population reflects a mix of commercial and Medicare, considering only direct healthcare costs. SETTING: This study utilized a tertiary healthcare setting. METHODS: A decision tree was used to map the diagnostic/treatment pathway, consisting of the proportion of patients with local, regional, distant, or no disease; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 1.0 or > 1.0; and accuracy of imaging modalities. A Markov model predicted the long-term outcomes of disease progression according to treatment decisions. Inputs to the model were informed by data from the OSPREY and CONDOR clinical trials, public data, and the literature. Treatment mix included active surveillance, radiation therapy, prostatectomy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and radiation therapy + ADT, informed by expert opinion. Outcomes included life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were reported in 2021 US dollars, using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 was considered cost effective, consistent with the upper range used as the standard for price benchmarks by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. The robustness of the base-case results was assessed in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, piflufolastat F 18 had the greatest effectiveness in terms of LYs (6.80) and QALYs (5.33); for the comparators, LYs ranged from 6.58 (SOC) to 6.76 (PSMA 11) and QALYs ranged from 5.12 (SOC) and 5.30 (PSMA 11). Piflufolastat F 18 was more cost effective compared with fluciclovine F 18, PSMA 11, and SOC, with ICERs of $21,122, $55,836, and $124,330 per QALY gained, respectively. Piflufolastat F 18 was associated with the greatest net monetary benefit ($627,918) compared with the other options at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The results of the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that piflufolastat F 18 is a cost-effective diagnostic option for men with prostate cancer in the US, with higher associated LY, QALY, and greater net monetary benefit than fluciclovine F 18, PSMA 11, and SOC imaging.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Filgotinib vs Vedolizumab, Tofacitinib, and Ustekinumab for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Where head-to-head trials are lacking, indirect comparative effectiveness can aid treatment decisions. We conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of clinical outcomes with filgotinib vs recently approved comparators (vedolizumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab) in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Individual patient data from the SELECTION trial (NCT02914522) for filgotinib 200 mg were weighted to match average baseline characteristics of active treatment and placebo arms in comparator trials. Efficacy outcomes were compared for biologic-naive and biologic-experienced subgroups in induction and maintenance populations, if data were available. Safety and health-related quality of life outcomes were compared in the overall maintenance population. RESULTS: Filgotinib had a similar effect on efficacy outcomes compared with tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and subcutaneous vedolizumab in both the induction and maintenance populations. Filgotinib showed improved clinical response vs intravenous (IV) vedolizumab (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 5.5; P < .05) among the biologic-experienced induction population, and improved corticosteroid-free clinical remission (odds ratio, 15.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 139.9; P < .05) among the biologic-naive maintenance population. Improved efficacy outcomes were reported with filgotinib compared with ustekinumab among the maintenance population. Higher estimates of serious adverse events were reported for filgotinib compared with vedolizumab IV 300 mg and tofacitinib 5 mg; however, imbalances were noted in their placebo groups. Health-related quality of life outcomes were similar between filgotinib and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results suggest superiority of filgotinib 200 mg over vedolizumab IV in terms of clinical response and corticosteroid-free clinical remission in certain patient populations, noting small sample sizes and wide CIs, which may aid the selection of advanced therapies for moderately to severely active UC. A potential increased risk of serious adverse events was reported for filgotinib 200 mg vs vedolizumab IV and tofacitinib 5 mg, but findings should be interpreted with caution owing to underlying imbalances observed between the placebo groups of SELECTION and comparator trials.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons between filgotinib and subcutaneous vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and ustekinumab demonstrated similar effects on efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clinical response and corticosteroid-free remission were improved with filgotinib compared with intravenous vedolizumab.

A Web-Based Sexual Health Intervention to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Infections in Hong Kong: Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain a significant public health concern, particularly among young adults, and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infections are the most common STIs in young women. One of the most effective ways to prevent STIs is the consistent use of condoms during sexual intercourse. There has been no economic evaluation of the interactive web-based sexual health program, Smart Girlfriend, within the Chinese population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of Smart Girlfriend in preventing STIs in the Chinese population. The evaluation compared the program with a control intervention that used a 1-page information sheet on condom use. METHODS: A decision-analytic model that included a decision tree followed by a Markov structure of CT infections was developed since CT is the most prevalent STI among young women. The model represents the long-term experience of individuals who received either the intervention or the control. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The main outcomes were the number of CT infections and the incremental cost as per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: A cohort of 10,000 sexually active nonpregnant young women initially entered the model in a noninfectious state (ie, "well"). In the base-case analysis, the implementation of the Smart Girlfriend program resulted in the prevention of 0.45% of CT infections, 0.3% of pelvic inflammatory disease, and 0.04% of chronic pelvic pain, leading to a gain of 70 discounted QALYs and cost savings over a 4-year time horizon, compared to the control group. With more than 4548 users, the intervention would be cost-effective, and with more than 8315 users, the intervention would be cost saving. A 99% probability of being cost-effective was detected with a willingness to pay US $17,409 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Smart Girlfriend is a cost-effective and possibly cost-saving program over a 4-year time horizon. This result was particularly sensitive to the number of website users; launching the website would be cost-effective if more than 4548 people used it. Further work is warranted to explore if the findings could be expanded to apply to women who have sex with women and in the context of other STIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03695679; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03695679.

Feasibility study for interactive reporting of network meta-analysis: experiences from the development of the MetaInsight COVID-19 app for stakeholder exploration, re-analysis and sensitivity analysis from living systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has been increasingly adopted worldwide by Cochrane reviews, guideline developers and decision-making bodies to identify optimal treatment choices. However, NMA results are often produced statically, not allowing stakeholders to 'dig deeper' and interrogate with their own judgement. Additionally, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, unnecessary or duplicated reviews have been proposed which analyse from the same pool of evidence. We developed the 'MetaInsight COVID-19' app as a prototype for an interactive platform to eliminate such duplicated efforts, by empowering users to freely analyse the data and improve scientific transparency. METHODS: MetaInsight COVID-19 ( https://crsu.shinyapps.io/metainsightcovid/ ) was developed to conduct NMA with the evolving evidence on treatments for COVID-19. It was updated weekly between 19th May - 19th Oct 2020, incorporating new evidence identified from a living systematic review. RESULTS: The app includes embedded functions to facilitate study selection based on study characteristics, and displays the synthesised results in real time. It allows both frequentist and Bayesian NMA to be conducted as well as consistency and heterogeneity assessments. A demonstration of the app is provided and experiences of building such a platform are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: MetaInsight COVID-19 allows users to take control of the evidence synthesis using the analytic approach they deem appropriate to ascertain how robust findings are to alternative analysis strategies and study inclusion criteria. It is hoped that this app will help avoid many of the duplicated efforts when reviewing and synthesising the COVID-19 evidence, and, in addition, establish the desirability of an open platform format such as this for interactive data interrogation, visualisation, and reporting for any traditional or 'living' NMA.

From Spreadsheets to Script: Experiences From Converting a Scottish Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model into R.

Given the advantages in transparency, reproducibility, adaptability and computational efficiency in R, there is a growing interest in converting existing spreadsheet-based models into an R script for model re-use and upskilling training among health economic modellers. The objective of this exercise was to convert the Scottish Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model from Excel to R and discuss the lessons learnt throughout this process. The CVD model is a competing risk state transition cohort model. Four health economists, with varied experience of R, attempted to replicate an identical model structure in R based on the model in Excel and reproduce the intermediate and final results. Replications varied in their use of specialist health economics packages in addition to standard data management packages. Two versions of the CVD model were created in R along with a Shiny app. Version 1 was developed without health economics specialist packages and produced identical results to the Excel version. Version 2 used the heemod package and did not achieve the same results, possibly due to the non-standard elements of the model and limited time to adapt the functions. The R model requires less than half the computational time than the Excel model. Conversion of the spreadsheet models to script models is feasible for health economists. A step-by-step guide for the conversion process is provided and modellers' experience is discussed. Coding without specialist packages allows full flexibility, while specialist packages may add convenience if the model structure is suitable. Whichever approach is taken, transparency and replicability remain the key criteria in model programming. Model conversions must maintain standards in these areas regardless of the choice of software.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

Type 2 diabetes remission: 2 year within-trial and lifetime-horizon cost-effectiveness of the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT)/Counterweight-Plus weight management programme.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Approximately 10% of total healthcare budgets worldwide are spent on treating diabetes and its complications, and budgets are increasing globally because of ageing populations and more expensive second-line medications. The aims of the study were to estimate the within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness of the weight management programme, which achieved 46% remissions of type 2 diabetes at year 1 and 36% at year 2 in the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT). METHODS: Within-trial analysis assessed costs of the Counterweight-Plus intervention in DiRECT (including training, programme materials, practitioner appointments and low-energy diet), along with glucose-lowering and antihypertensive medications, and all routine healthcare contacts. Lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated according to projected durations of remissions, assuming continued relapse rates as seen in year 2 of DiRECT and consequent life expectancy, quality of life and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Mean total 2 year healthcare costs for the intervention and control groups were £3036 and £2420, respectively: an incremental cost of £616 (95% CI -£45, £1269). Intervention costs (£1411; 95% CI £1308, £1511) were partially offset by lower other healthcare costs (£796; 95% CI £150, £1465), including reduced oral glucose-lowering medications by £231 (95% CI £148, £314). Net remission at 2 years was 32.3% (95% CI 23.5%, 40.3%), and cost per remission achieved was £1907 (lower 95% CI: intervention dominates; upper 95% CI: £4212). Over a lifetime horizon, the intervention was modelled to achieve a mean 0.06 (95% CI 0.04, 0.09) QALY gain for the DiRECT population and mean total lifetime cost savings per participant of £1337 (95% CI £674, £2081), with the intervention becoming cost-saving within 6 years. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Incorporating the lifetime healthcare cost savings due to periods of remission from diabetes and its complications, the DiRECT intervention is predicted to be both more effective (QALY gain) and cost-saving in adults with type 2 diabetes compared with standard care. This conclusion appears robust to various less favourable model scenarios, providing strong evidence that resources could be shifted cost-effectively to support achieving remissions with the DiRECT intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN03267836 Graphical abstract.

Cost-effectiveness of the PDSAFE personalised physiotherapy intervention for fall prevention in Parkinson's: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: PDSAFE is an individually-tailored, physiotherapist-delivered, balance, strength and strategy training programme aimed at preventing falls among people with Parkinson's. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PDSAFE compared with usual care for people with Parkinson's at higher risk of falling, from a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective. METHODS: Resource use and quality of life data (EQ-5D-3L) were collected from 238 participants randomised to the PDSAFE intervention and 236 participants randomised to control, at baseline, 3 months, 6 months (primary outcome), and 12 months. Adjusted cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using generalised linear models and uncertainty estimated using a non-parametric bootstrap. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the PDSAFE intervention was associated with an incremental cost of £925 (95% CI £428 to £1422) and a very small and statistically insignificant QALY gain of 0.008 (95% CI - 0.006 to 0.021). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £120,659 per QALY and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at a UK threshold of £30,000/QALY was less than 1%. The ICER varied substantially across subgroups although no subgroup had an ICER lower than the £30,000 threshold. The result was sensitive to the time horizon with the ICER reducing to £55,176 per QALY when adopting a 12-month time horizon and assuming a sustained treatment effect on QoL, nevertheless, the intervention was still not cost-effective according to the current UK threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this trial suggests that the PDSAFE intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at 6 months. The 12-month analysis suggested that the intervention became closer to being cost-effective if quality of life effects were sustained beyond the intervention period, however this would require confirmation. Further research, including qualitative studies, should be conducted to better understand the treatment effect of physiotherapy and its impact on quality of life in people with Parkinson's given existing mixed evidence on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN48152791. Registered 17 April 2014. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN48152791.

Parent-reported outcomes in young children with disorders/differences of sex development.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of tools that can be used in routine clinical practice to assess the psychosocial impact of Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSD) on parents and children. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of short Parent Self-Report and Parent Proxy-Report questionnaires that can be used in the outpatient setting. METHODS: Previously validated DSD-specific and generic items were combined to develop a Parent Self-Report questionnaire and a Parent Proxy-Report questionnaire for children under 7 years. Of 111 children approached at one tertiary paediatric hospital, the parents of 95 children (86%) with DSD or other Endocrine conditions completed these questionnaires. RESULTS: Questionnaires took under 10 min to complete and were found to be easy to understand. Compared to reference, fathers of children with DSD reported less stress associated with Clinic Visits (p = 0.02) and managing their child's Medication (p = 0.04). However, parents of children with either DSD or other Endocrine conditions reported more symptoms of Depression (p = 0.03). Mothers of children with DSD reported greater Future Concerns in relation to their child's condition (median SDS - 0.28; range - 2.14, 1.73) than mothers of children with other Endocrine conditions (SDS 1.17; - 2.00, 1.73) (p = 0.02). Similarly, fathers of children with DSD expressed greater Future Concerns (median SDS -1.60; - 4.21, 1.00) than fathers of children with other Endocrine conditions (SDS 0.48; - 2.13, 1.52) (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: DSD was associated with greater parental concerns over the child's future than other Endocrine conditions. Brief parent-report tools in DSD can be routinely used in the outpatient setting to assess and monitor parent and patient needs.

MetaInsight: An interactive web-based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta-analyses using R-shiny and netmeta.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analysis method used to identify the best treatments for a condition and is used extensively by health care decision makers. Although software routines exist for conducting NMA, they require considerable statistical programming expertise to use, which limits the number of researchers able to conduct such analyses. OBJECTIVES: To develop a web-based tool allowing users with only standard internet browser software to be able to conduct NMAs using an intuitive "point and click" interface and present the results using visual plots. METHODS: Using the existing netmeta and Shiny packages for R to conduct the analyses, and to develop the user interface, we created the MetaInsight tool which is freely available to use via the web. RESULTS: A package was created for conducting NMA which satisfied our objectives, and this is described, and its application demonstrated, using an illustrative example. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that many researchers will find our package helpful for facilitating NMA as well as allowing decision makers to scrutinize presented results visually and in real time. This will impact on the relevance of statistical analyses for health care decision making and sustainably increase capacity by empowering informed nonspecialists to be able to conduct more clinically relevant reviews. It is also hoped that others will be inspired to create similar tools for other advanced specialist analyses methods using the freely available technologies we have adopted.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme for physical activity behaviour change maintenance: results from a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme based intervention involving rewards for increasing physical activity in public sector employees. METHODS: A cluster randomised wait-list controlled trial in public sector organisations in Northern Ireland. We randomly assigned clusters (1:1) using a computer generated random sequence. Researchers were masked to allocation, but participants were not. Employees aged 18-65 years with no self-reported medical contraindications to physical activity were included. The Physical Activity Loyalty Scheme (PAL) intervention was based on high-street loyalty cards where participants earned points for minutes of activity that could be redeemed for rewards, complemented by evidence-based behaviour change techniques. The primary outcome was objectively measured mean steps/day at 6 months using a validated pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW-701) over 7 days, assessed with intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included health, mental wellbeing, quality of life, work absenteeism and presenteeism, and use of healthcare resources. Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and mediation analyses were conducted. Trial registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN17975376. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and October 2015, we recruited and randomly assigned 37 clusters (from nine organisations; mean clusters per organisation = four) and 853 participants to the intervention (n = 19 with 457 participants) or control group (n = 18 with 396 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 249 (54·4%) intervention and 236 (59·6%) control participants. Mean steps/day were significantly lower in the intervention vs control group (adjusted mean difference = - 336, 95% CI: -612 to - 60, p = 0·02) at 6 months. Participants redeemed only 39% (SD 43%) of their earned points. Using the Quality Adjusted Life Year outcome, the intervention was not cost effective from an NHS/PSS perspective. A net cost analysis from an employer perspective demonstrated the intervention group was associated with a mean of 2·97 h less absenteeism over a 4 week period (p = 0·62), which could result in net savings ranging from £66 to £735 depending on the wage rate employed. At 4-weeks post-baseline there were significant increases in identified regulation, integrated regulation, intrinsic motivation, social norms and intentions in intervention compared to control participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed results pose challenges that are too infrequently exposed in public heath intervention trials. Although the intervention successfully altered several hypothesised mediating constructs it did not translate into long-term behaviour change. Our incentive level may have been too low to incentivise change, despite being designed a priori by a Contingent Valuation Survey. There were also major re-structuring of several organisations which presented significant implementation challenges, and technical limitations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17975376 (Registered 19/09/2014).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccinations and decision makings on vaccination programmes in Hong Kong: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and systematically review the modelling and reporting of cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination in Hong Kong, and to identify areas for quality enhancement in future cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive and systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies related to vaccination and government immunisation programmes in Hong Kong published from 1990 to 2015, through database search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and OVID Medline. Methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist (CHEERS). Decision making of vaccination was obtained from Scientific Committee on Vaccine Preventable Diseases (SCVPD) and Department of Health in Hong Kong. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies reporting twelve comparative cost-effectiveness comparisons of vaccination programme for influenza (n=2), pneumococcal disease (n=3), influenza plus pneumococcal disease (n=1), chickenpox (n=2), Haemophilus influenzae b (n=1), hepatitis A (n=1), cervical cancer (n=1) and rotavirus (n=1) were identified. Ten comparisons (83.3%) calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a vaccination strategy versus status quo as outcomes in terms of cost in USD per life-years, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, or cost per disability-adjusted life-years. Among those 10 comparisons in base-case scenario, 4 evaluated interventions were cost-saving relative to status quo while the ICER estimates in 3 of the 6 remaining comparisons were far below commonly accepted threshold and WHO willingness-to-pay threshold, suggestive of very cost-effective. Seven studies were of good quality based on the CHEERS checklist; one was of moderate quality; and one was of excellent quality. The common methodological problems were characterisation of heterogeneity and reporting of study parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There was a paucity of cost-effectiveness models evaluating vaccination targeted to the Hong Kong population. All evaluated vaccinations and immunisation interventions in Hong Kong, except for Haemophilus influenzae b, hepatitis A and HPV vaccinations, were considered either cost-saving or very cost-effective when compared to status quo.