Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group's base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group's base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.

Fenfluramine for Treating Dravet Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Fenfluramine, tradename Fintepla®, was appraised within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process as Technology Appraisal 808. Within the STA process, the company (Zogenix International) provided NICE with a written submission and a mathematical health economic model, summarising the company's estimates of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine for patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). This company submission (CS) was reviewed by an evidence review group (ERG) independent of NICE. The ERG, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, produced an ERG report. This paper presents a summary of the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance. The CS included a systematic review of the evidence for fenfluramine. From this review the company identified and presented evidence from two randomised trials (Study 1 and Study 1504), an open-label extension study (Study 1503) and 'real world evidence' from a prospective and retrospective study. Both randomised trials were conducted in patients up to 18 years of age with DS, whose seizures were incompletely controlled with previous anti-epileptic drugs. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare fenfluramine with cannabidiol plus clobazam. There was no evidence of a difference between any doses of fenfluramine and cannabidiol in the mean convulsive seizure frequency (CSF) rate during treatment. However, fenfluramine increased the number of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in CSF frequency from baseline compared to cannabidiol. The company used an individual-patient state-transition model (R version 3.5.2) to model cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine. The CSF and convulsive seizure-free days were estimated using patient-level data from the placebo arm of the fenfluramine registration studies. Subsequently, a treatment effect of either fenfluramine or cannabidiol was applied. Utility values for the economic model were obtained by mapping Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory data from the registration studies to EuroQol-5D-3L Youth (EQ-5D-Y-3L). The company included caregiver utilities in their base-case, as the severe needs of patients with DS have a major impact on parents and caregivers. There were several key issues. First, the company included caregiver utilities in the model in a way that when patients in the economic model died, the corresponding caregiver utility was also set to zero. Second, the model was built in R statistical software, resulting in transparency issues. Third, the company assumed the same percentage reduction for convulsive seizure days as was estimated for CSF. Fourth, during the final appraisal committee meeting, influential changes were made to the model that were not in line with the ERG's preferences (but were accepted by the appraisal committee). The company's revised and final incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in line with committee preferences resulted in fenfluramine dominating cannabidiol. Fenfluramine was recommended as an add-on to other antiepileptic medicines for treating seizures associated with DS in people aged 2 years and older in the National Health Service (NHS).

Belimumab for Treating Active Autoantibody-Positive Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]) of Benlysta (belimumab) to submit evidence regarding its clinical and cost effectiveness, for the review and possible extension of a previously conditionally approved intravenous formulation of belimumab for the treatment of active autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee.This appraisal is different to the previous appraisal in three ways: (1). This appraisal expands its definition of 'high disease activity'. (2). In TA397, belimumab was approved, with a managed access arrangement (MAA), for adults only. This appraisal includes subjects aged 5 years or older. (3). The original appraisal included an intravenous formulation only, but the current appraisal also includes a new subcutaneous formulation in the form of a prefilled pen.The company was required to collect real-world data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR), including data on the efficacy, safety, and effect on health-related quality of life of belimumab versus rituximab. This appraisal considers these data as well as additional clinical trial evidence presented in the company's updated submission to address uncertainties identified during the original appraisal. The ERG identified three major concerns with the evidence presented on the clinical effectiveness in the current submission; namely, short follow-up in the main comparative trials (BLISS-SC, BLISS-52 and BLISS-76); using the propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis in calibrating the cost-effectiveness model can severely bias the results in favour of belimumab; and BILAG-BR data are not suitable for a comparison of belimumab with rituximab.The main issue in the economic analysis was the uncertainty about long-term disease activity progression and resulting organ damage. The company's approach of calibrating modelled organ damage to longer-term data analysed using the PSM analysis was methodologically inappropriate. The final analysis comparing belimumab with standard treatment for the intravenous formulation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,335 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and £30,278 per QALY gained in the company's and ERG's base-case analyses, respectively. For the subcutaneous formulation, the final analysis resulted in £8480 per QALY gained and £29,313 per QALY gained in the company's and ERG's base-case analyses, respectively. NICE recommended belimumab in both intravenous and subcutaneous formulations as an add-on treatment option for active autoantibody-positive SLE in the HDA-2 subgroup.

Systematic review search methods evaluated using the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews tool.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological and reporting characteristics of search methods of systematic reviews (SRs) using the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. METHODS: A sample of 505 SRs published in 2016 was taken from KSR Evidence, a database of SRs, and analyzed to assess compliance with Information sources and Search of the PRISMA checklist. Domain 2 (D2) (Identification and Selection of Studies) of the ROBIS tool was used to judge the risk of bias in search methods. RESULTS: Regarding Information sources and Search of PRISMA, twenty percent of SRs which claimed to be PRISMA-compliant in their methods, were compliant; twenty-four percent of SRs published in journals that require PRISMA reporting were compliant; nineteen percent in total were found to be compliant. Twenty-eight percent of SRs were judged to be at a low risk of bias in D2 and so searched widely with an effective strategy and, finally, ten percent were both compliant with the reporting of Information sources and with Search of PRISMA and were judged to be at a low risk of bias in D2. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety percent of SRs are failing to report search methods adequately and to conduct comprehensive searches using a wide range of resources. Editors of journals and peer reviewers need to ensure that they understand the requirements of PRISMA and that compliance is adhered to. Additionally, the comprehensiveness of search methods for SRs needs to be given more critical consideration.

Durvalumab for the Treatment of Locally Advanced, Unresectable, Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (AstraZeneca) of durvalumab (IMFINZITM) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer whose tumours express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on ≥ 1% of tumour cells and whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included a systematic review that identified one randomised controlled trial, comparing durvalumab with SoC. Participants with tumours expressing PD-L1 on ≥ 1% of tumour cells accounted for approximately 40% of the total participants. In this subgroup, a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.63] and overall survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.81) was reported. Adverse events were comparable between both treatments, but more serious adverse events were reported for durvalumab (64/213 [30%] vs. 18/90 [20%]). The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included a likely overestimation of PFS for the durvalumab arm, the choice of timepoint for treatment waning, as well as the way treatment waning was incorporated in the model, and potential overestimation of utility values without applying an age- or treatment-related decrement. The revised ERG base-case resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £50,238 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with substantial remaining uncertainty. NICE recommended durvalumab as an option for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund only in a subpopulation (concurrent platinum-based chemoradiation therapy) with a commercially managed access agreement in place.

A Systematic Review of Direct Cardiovascular Event Costs: An International Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of comprehensive cost information for cardiovascular events since 2013. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review on the contemporary cost of cardiovascular events was therefore undertaken. METHODS: Methods complied with those recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Studies were unrestricted by language, were from 2013 to 23 December 2017, and included cost-of-illness data in adults with the following cardiovascular conditions: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), heart failure (HF), unstable angina (UA), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Seven electronic databases were searched, namely Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE In-Process Citations and Daily Update (Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. The included studies reported data from a variety of years (sometimes prior to 2013), so costs were inflated and converted to $US, year 2018 values, for standardization. RESULTS: After de-duplication, 29,945 titles and abstracts and then 403 full papers were screened; 82 studies (88 papers) were extracted. Year 1 average cost ranges were as follows: MI ($11,970 in Sweden to $61,864 in the USA), stroke ($10,162 in Spain to $46,162 in the USA), TIA ($6049 in Sweden to $25,306 in the USA), HF ($4456 in China to $49,427 in the USA), UA ($11,237 in Sweden to $31,860 in the USA), PCI ($17,923 in Italy to $45,533 in the USA), CABG ($17,972 in the UK to $76,279 in the USA). One Swedish study reported PAD costs in a format convertible to $US, 2018 values, with a mean annual cost of $15,565. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable unexplained variation in contemporary costs for all major cardiovascular events. One emerging theme was that average costs in the USA were considerably higher than anywhere else.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone for Treating Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated with Lenalidomide and Bortezomib: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the manufacturer of pomalidomide (POM; Imnovid®, Celgene) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after at least two regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BOR). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR) and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this submission. The ERG reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses in order to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG assessment, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The company conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing POM with comparators outlined in the NICE scope: panobinostat with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PANO + BOR + DEX), bendamustine with thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) and conventional chemotherapy (CC). The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from MM-003, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing POM + LoDEX with high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; used as a proxy for CC). Additional data from other studies were also used as nonrandomized observational data sources for the indirect treatment comparison of POM + LoDEX with BTD and PANO + BOR + DEX. Covariate or treatment switching adjustment methods were used for each comparison. The model developed in Microsoft® Excel 2010 using a semi-Markov partitioned survival structure, submitted in the original submission to NICE for TA338, was adapted for the present assessment of the cost effectiveness of POM + LoDEX. Updated evidence from the clinical-effectiveness part was used for the survival modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. For POM + LoDEX, the patient access scheme (PAS) discount was applied to the POM price. Three separate comparisons were conducted for each comparator, each comparison using a different dataset and adjustment methods. The ERG identified and corrected some errors, and the corrected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for POM + LoDEX versus each comparator were presented: approximately £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus BTD, savings of approximately £143,000 per QALY lost versus PANO + BOR + DEX, and approximately £49,000 per QALY gained versus CC. The ERG also conducted full incremental analyses, which revealed that CC, POM + LoDEX and PANO + BOR + DEX were on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The committee's decision on the technology under analysis deemed that POM + LoDEX should be recommended as an option for treating multiple myeloma in adults at third or subsequent relapse of treatments including both LEN and BOR, contingent on the company providing POM with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance.

BACKGROUND: This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 µg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9-95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 µg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6-80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 µg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42016037723.

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC. RESULTS: We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population. LIMITATIONS: Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid.

OBJECTIVE: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review. METHODS: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid). RESULTS: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review. CONCLUSION: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews.

The relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes: a systematic review.

Robust associations between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and CVD outcomes among general populations have been published in previous studies. However, associations in high risk primary prevention and secondary prevention populations are less well defined. In order to investigate this further, a systematic review was performed including prospective studies, which assessed the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes using multivariable analyses. Additional information was gathered on Lp(a) assays, multivariable modelling and population characteristics. Literature searches from inception up to December 2015 retrieved 2850 records. From these 60 studies were included. Across 39 primary prevention studies in the general population (hazard ratios ranged from 1.16 to 2.97) and seven high risk primary prevention studies (hazard ratios ranged from 1.01 to 3.7), there was evidence of a statistically significant relationship between increased Lp(a) and an increased risk of future CVD. Results in 14 studies of secondary prevention populations were also suggestive of a modest statistically significant relationship (hazard ratios ranged from 0.75 to 3.7).Therefore current evidence would suggest that increased Lp(a) levels are associated with modest increases in the risk of future CVD events in both general and higher risk populations. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic therapy for the treatment of sepsis in intensive care settings and for suspected bacterial infection in emergency department settings: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Determination of the presence or absence of bacterial infection is important to guide appropriate therapy and reduce antibiotic exposure. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker that has been suggested as a marker for bacterial infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding PCT testing to the information used to guide antibiotic therapy in adults and children (1) with confirmed or highly suspected sepsis in intensive care and (2) presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected bacterial infection. METHODS: Twelve databases were searched to June 2014. Randomised controlled trials were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Summary relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were estimated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed visually using forest plots and statistically using the I (2) and Q statistics and investigated through subgroup analysis. The cost-effectiveness of PCT testing in addition to current clinical practice was compared with current clinical practice using a decision tree with a 6 months' time horizon. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (36 reports) were included in the systematic review. PCT algorithms were associated with reduced antibiotic duration [WMD -3.19 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.44 to -0.95 days, I (2) = 95.2%; four studies], hospital stay (WMD -3.85 days, 95% CI -6.78 to -0.92 days, I (2) = 75.2%; four studies) and a trend towards reduced intensive care unit (ICU) stay (WMD -2.03 days, 95% CI -4.19 to 0.13 days, I (2) = 81.0%; four studies). There were no differences for adverse clinical outcomes. PCT algorithms were associated with a reduction in the proportion of adults (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87; seven studies) and children (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.93) receiving antibiotics, reduced antibiotic duration (two studies). There were no differences for adverse clinical outcomes. All but one of the studies in the ED were conducted in people presenting with respiratory symptoms. Cost-effectiveness: the base-case analyses indicated that PCT testing was cost-saving for (1) adults with confirmed or highly suspected sepsis in an ICU setting; (2) adults with suspected bacterial infection presenting to the ED; and (3) children with suspected bacterial infection presenting to the ED. Cost-savings ranged from £368 to £3268. Moreover, PCT-guided treatment resulted in a small quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (ranging between < 0.001 and 0.005). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that PCT-guided treatment has a probability of ≥ 84% of being cost-effective for all settings and populations considered (at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The limited available data suggest that PCT testing may be effective and cost-effective when used to guide discontinuation of antibiotics in adults being treated for suspected or confirmed sepsis in ICU settings and initiation of antibiotics in adults presenting to the ED with respiratory symptoms and suspected bacterial infection. However, it is not clear that observed costs and effects are directly attributable to PCT testing, are generalisable outside people presenting with respiratory symptoms (for the ED setting) and would be reproducible in the UK NHS. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of adding PCT algorithms to the information used to guide antibiotic treatment in children with suspected or confirmed sepsis in ICU settings. Additional research is needed to examine whether the outcomes presented in this report are fully generalisable to the UK. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010822. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials between 1999 and 2013.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) for patients with heart failure (HF). However, established research has not investigated the longer-term outcomes including mortality and hospitalisation in light of the contemporary management of HF. METHODS: This was a systematic review including a meta-analysis of EBCR on all-cause mortality, hospital admission, and standardised exercise capacity using four separate exercise tests in patients with heart failure over a minimum follow-up of six months from January 1999-January 2013. Electronic searches were performed in the databases: Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO constrained to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: A total of 46 separate RCTs qualified for the meta-analysis, which employed conventional methods for binary and continuous data. The relative risk (RR) ratio for hospital admission (12 studies) was significantly reduced (RR ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.84; p = 0.001), but mortality (21 studies) was not (RR ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.77-1.02; p = 0.08). The standardised exercise capacity (26 studies) showed a standardised mean difference (SMD) in favour of the exercise group as compared with the controls (SMD 0.98, 95% CI 0.59-1.37; p < 0.001). Women and elderly people were less frequently enrolled in the RCTs independent of the outcomes. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the analysis of hospital admission and the standardised exercise capacity demonstrated through skewedness in their funnel plots. CONCLUSIONS: EBCR in patients with HF is associated with significant improvements in exercise capacity and hospital admission over a minimum of six months follow-up, but not in all-cause mortality.

Systematic review of the use of bone turnover markers for monitoring the response to osteoporosis treatment: the secondary prevention of fractures, and primary prevention of fractures in high-risk groups.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no standard practice for the monitoring of patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Repeated dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used for monitoring treatment response, but it has its limitations. Bone turnover markers have advantages over DXA as they are non-invasive, relatively cheap and can detect changes in bone turnover rates earlier. However, they do have disadvantages, particularly high within- and between-patient variability. The ability of bone turnover markers to identify treatment non-responders and predict future fracture risk has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness, test accuracy, reliability, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness of bone turnover markers for monitoring the response to osteoporosis treatment. DATA SOURCES: We searched 12 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and trials registries) without language restrictions from inception to March 2012. We hand-searched three relevant journals for the 12 months prior to May 2012, and websites of five test manufacturers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of test accuracy, clinical utility, reliability and reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness of two formation and two resorption bone turnover markers, in patients being treated for osteoporosis with any of bisphosphonate [alendronate (Fosamax, MSD), risedronate (Actonel, Warner Chilcott Company), zolendronate (Zometa, Novartis)], raloxifene (Evista, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), strontium ranelate (Protelos, Servier Laboratories Ltd), denosumab (Prolia, Amgen Ltd) or teriparatide (Forsteo, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Given the breadth of the review question, a range of study designs and outcome measures were eligible. The development of a decision model was planned to determine the cost-effectiveness of bone turnover markers for informing changes in patient management if clinical effectiveness could be established. RESULTS: Forty-two studies (70 publications) met the inclusion criteria; none evaluated cost-effectiveness. Only five were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); these assessed only the impact of bone marker monitoring on aspects of adherence. No RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of bone turnover marker monitoring on treatment management. One trial suggested that feedback of a good response decreased non-persistence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.95], and feedback of a poor response increased non-persistence (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.89); it is not clear whether or not the trial recruited a population representative of that seen in clinical practice. Thirty-three studies reported results of some assessment of test accuracy, mostly correlations between changes in bone turnover and bone mineral density. Only four studies reported on intra- or interpatient reliability and reproducibility in treated patients. Overall, the results were inconsistent and inconclusive, owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity across the studies and the generally small sample sizes. As clinical effectiveness of bone turnover monitoring could not be established, a decision-analytic model was not developed. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to inform the choice of which bone turnover marker to use in routine clinical practice to monitor osteoporosis treatment response. The research priority is to identify the most promising treatment-test combinations for evaluation in subsequent, methodologically sound, RCTs. In order to determine whether or not bone turnover marker monitoring improves treatment management decisions, and ultimately impacts on patient outcomes in terms of reduced incidence of fracture, RCTs are required. Given the large number of potential patient population-treatment-test combinations, the most promising combinations would initially need to be identified in order to ensure that any RCTs focus on evaluating those strategies. As a result, the research priority is to identify these promising combinations, by either conducting small variability studies or initiating a patient registry to collect standardised data. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ruxolitinib (Novartis) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for ruxolitinib within its licensed indication (the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with myelofibrosis), according to the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA289 issued in June 2013. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer's submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from two phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trials (RCTs): Controlled myelofibrosis study with oral JAK inhibitor treatment (COMFORT)-II compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT), and COMFORT-I compared ruxolitinib with placebo. These RCTs demonstrated that ruxolitinib confers significant benefits in terms of spleen size reduction and improvement in symptom burden. In the COMFORT-II trial, a reduction in spleen volume of ≥35 % was achieved in 28 % of ruxolitinib-treated patients compared with 0 % of patients in the BAT group (p < 0.001) at 48 weeks, and there was a mean change in spleen volume of -30.1 versus +7.3 % (p < 0.001). Ruxolitinib also provided significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality-of-life compared with BAT and placebo. The ERG concluded that ruxolitinib appears to reduce splenomegaly and its associated symptoms, but that there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the manufacturer's cost-effectiveness estimates due to limitations in the manufacturer's model. The manufacturer's model did not allow for disease progression, did not accurately capture symptomatic relief, had several implausible or unjustified assumptions, and there were several parameter choices that the ERG found sub-optimal. ERG sensitivity analyses found that nearly all plausible adjustments to the model reduced the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib. It is very likely that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,980/quality-adjusted life-year presented by the manufacturer represents a best-case scenario. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ruxolitinib was clinically effective, but could not be considered a cost effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adults with myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib is not recommended for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with primary myelofibrosis (also known as chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis), post-polycythaemia vera myelofibrosis and post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis in NICE TA289.

Interventions for alcohol and drug problems in outpatient settings: a systematic review.

ISSUES: Research evidence indicates a high prevalence of substance abuse among patients presenting in general hospital settings. Such misuse of alcohol and illicit drugs has a major impact on population health and on costs to health services and to society at large. This review aimed to identify the interventions for alcohol or illicit drug misuse problems that have been evaluated for hospital outpatient populations. APPROACH: Thirteen electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched for published and unpublished studies in any language up to August 2011. Reference lists of included studies and reviews were also hand-searched. We included randomised and controlled clinical trials of any intervention for adult participants identified as having alcohol and/or drug problems presenting to hospital outpatient settings other than addiction or psychiatric units. Participants could be attending hospital for any reason other than treatment for substance abuse. A narrative synthesis was conducted. KEY FINDINGS: There is some evidence to suggest that interventions based on motivational techniques might be effective in treatment of alcohol misuse in oral-maxillofacial clinics but not in general outpatient departments. The evidence is insufficient to allow any conclusions to be derived on the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of drug misuse and combined alcohol-drug misuse in outpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to investigate interventions for alcohol and drug misuse in outpatient settings. Additionally, problems remain in terms of study quality. Procedures to ensure the rigour of a study were often poorly reported.