Diabetic Macular Edema and Diode Subthreshold Micropulse Laser: A Randomized Double-Masked Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT) < 400 µm. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes. METHODS: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 µm, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments. RESULTS: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 µm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 µm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.

Designing economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in maternal health care: A guide for clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations are being conducted with increasing frequency in the maternity care setting, with more randomized controlled trials containing a health economic component. Key emerging criticisms of economic evaluation in maternity care are lack of robust data collection and measurement, inconsistencies in methodology, and lack of adherence to reporting guidelines. METHODS: This article provides a guide to the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in maternal health. We include economic concepts and considerations for the maternity setting and provide examples from the UK and Australia. RESULTS: There are many important considerations for the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. To be effective, researchers must select types of economic evaluation, which align with their study objectives; choose an appropriate evaluation perspective, time horizon, and discount rate; and identify accurate ways to measure and evaluate health outcomes and costs. DISCUSSION: This guide is written for noneconomists and can be used for designing economic evaluations to be conducted as a part of clinical trials. We seek to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of economic evaluations in maternal health.

Competing treatments for migraine: a headache for decision-makers.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is the world's second most common disabling disorder, affecting 15% of UK adults and costing the UK over £1.5 billion per year. Several costly new drugs have been approved by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of drugs used to treat adults with chronic migraine. METHODS: We did a systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of preventive drugs for chronic migraine. We then assessed the cost-effectiveness of the currently prescribable drugs included in the review: Onabotulinum toxin A (BTA), Eptinezumab (100mg or 300mg), Fremanezumab (monthly or quarterly dose), Galcanezumab or Topiramate, each compared to placebo, and we evaluated them jointly. We developed a Markov (state-transition) model with a three-month cycle length to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the different medications from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We used a two-year time horizon with a starting age of 30 years for the patient cohort. We estimated transition probabilities based on monthly headache days using a network meta-analysis (NMA) developed by us, and from published literature. We obtained costs from published sources and applied discount rates of 3.5% to both costs and outcomes. RESULTS: Deterministic results suggest Topiramate was the least costly option and generated slightly more QALYs than the placebo, whereas Eptinezumab 300mg was the more costly option and generated the most QALYs. After excluding dominated options, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between BTA and Topiramate was £68,000 per QALY gained and the ICER between Eptinezumab 300mg and BTA was not within plausible cost-effectiveness thresholds. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier showed that Topiramate is the most cost-effective medication for any amount the decision maker is willing-to-pay per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Among the various prophylactic medications for managing chronic migraine, only Topiramate was within typical cost-effectiveness threshold ranges. Further research is needed, ideally an economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial, to compare these newer, expensive CGRP MAbs with the cheaper oral medications.

Clinical effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for managing chronic migraine in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication is the most effective. We present a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and rank of preventive drugs for chronic migraine in adults. METHODS: We identified, reviewed, and extracted data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs for chronic migraine with at least 200 participants. Data were analysed using network meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We included 12 RCTs of six medications (Eptinezumab, Erenumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab, Onabotulinumtoxin A, and Topiramate) compared to placebo or each other. All drugs effectively reduced monthly headache and migraine days compared with placebo. The most effective drug for monthly headache days was Eptinezumab 300mg, with a mean difference of -2.46 days, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): -3.23 to -1.69. On the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Area (SUCRA) analysis, the probability that Eptinezumab 300mg was ranked highest was 0.82. For monthly migraine days, the most effective medication was Fremanezumab-monthly, with a mean difference: -2.77 days, 95% CrI: -3.36 to -2.17, and 0.98 probability of being ranked the highest. All included drugs, except Topiramate, improved headache-related quality of life. No eligible studies were identified for the other common preventive oral medications such as Amitriptyline, Candesartan, and Propranolol. The main reasons were that the studies did not define chronic migraine, were undertaken before the definition of chronic migraine, or were too small. INTERPRETATION: All six medications were more effective than the placebo on monthly headache and migraine days. The absolute differences in the number of headache/migraine days are, at best, modest. No evidence was found to determine the relative effectiveness of the six included drugs with other oral preventive medications. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (number CRD42021265990).

Mapping between headache specific and generic preference-based health-related quality of life measures.

BACKGROUND: The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and the Chronic Headache Questionnaire (CH-QLQ) measure headache-related quality of life but are not preference-based and therefore cannot be used to generate health utilities for cost-effectiveness analyses. There are currently no established algorithms for mapping between the HIT-6 or CH-QLQ and preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures for chronic headache population. METHODS: We developed algorithms for generating EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from the HIT-6 and the CHQLQ using both direct and response mapping approaches. A multi-stage model selection process was used to assess the predictive accuracy of the models. The estimated mapping algorithms were derived to generate UK tariffs and was validated using the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) trial dataset. RESULTS: Several models were developed that reasonably accurately predict health utilities in this context. The best performing model for predicting EQ-5D-5L utility scores from the HIT-6 scores was a Censored Least Absolute Deviations (CLAD) (1) model that only included the HIT-6 score as the covariate (mean squared error (MSE) 0.0550). The selected model for CH-QLQ to EQ-5D-5L was the CLAD (3) model that included CH-QLQ summary scores, age, and gender, squared terms and interaction terms as covariates (MSE 0.0583). The best performing model for predicting SF-6D utility scores from the HIT-6 scores was the CLAD (2) model that included the HIT-6 score and age and gender as covariates (MSE 0.0102). The selected model for CH-QLQ to SF-6D was the OLS (2) model that included CH-QLQ summary scores, age, and gender as covariates (MSE 0.0086). CONCLUSION: The developed algorithms enable the estimation of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from two headache-specific questionnaires where preference-based health-related quality of life data are missing. However, further work is needed to help define the best approach to measuring health utilities in headache studies.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic migraine is a common neurovascular brain disorder with substantial economic costs. We performed a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine. METHODS: We undertook systematic literature searches using terms for migraine/headache and prophylactic drug interventions, combined with economic/cost terms where appropriate. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently assessed the citations and abstracts, and full-text articles were retrieved. A review of study characteristics and methodological quality was assessed. RESULTS: Sixteen citations met the inclusion criteria and were model-based cost-utility studies evaluating: Botox (n = 6); Erenumab (n = 8); Fremanezumab (n = 2); and Galcanezumab (n = 1) as the main treatment. They varied in their use of comparators, perspective, and model type. Botox was cost-effective compared to placebo with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging between £15,028 (€17,720) and £16,598 (€19,572). Erenumab, Fremanezumab and Galcanezumab when compared to Botox, was associated with ICERs ranging between £59,712 ($81,080) and £182,128 (€218,870), with the ICERs above the most common willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTPs). But they were cost-effective within the commonly used WTPs among the population for whom the previous treatments including Botox were failed. Three studies compared the cost-effectiveness of Erenumab against the placebo and found that Erenumab was dominant. All studies performed sensitivity analyses to check the robustness of their results. None of the findings from the included articles were generalisable and none of the included studies fulfilled all the criteria mentioned in the CHEERS 2022 reporting checklist and Phillips's checklist for economic models. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments of chronic migraine in the adult population using Botox and Erenumab were identified. Our findings suggest that both Botox and Erenumab, are cost-effective compared to placebo; although Erenumab had more incremental economic benefits compared to Botox, the ICERs were above the most common willingness-to-pay thresholds. Hence, Erenumab might be an acceptable treatment for chronic migraine for patients whom other treatments such as Botox do not work. Further research is needed to help characterise the data to adequately structure and parameterise an economic model to support decision-making for chronic migraine therapies.

Evaluation of a New Model of Care for People with Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy: The EMERALD Study.

PURPOSE: The increasing diabetes prevalence and advent of new treatments for its major visual-threatening complications (diabetic macular edema [DME] and proliferative diabetic retinopathy [PDR]), which require frequent life-long follow-up, have increased hospital demands markedly. Subsequent delays in patient's evaluation and treatment are causing sight loss. Strategies to increase capacity are needed urgently. The retinopathy (EMERALD) study tested diagnostic accuracy, acceptability, and costs of a new health care pathway for people with previously treated DME or PDR. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, case-referent, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study undertaken in 13 hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes previously successfully treated DME or PDR who, at the time of enrollment, had active or inactive disease. METHODS: A new health care pathway entailing multimodal imaging (spectral-domain OCT for DME, and 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] and ultra-widefield [UWF] fundus images for PDR) interpreted by trained nonmedical staff (ophthalmic graders) to detect reactivation of disease was compared with the current standard care (face-to-face examination by ophthalmologists). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: sensitivity of the new pathway. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: specificity; agreement between pathways; costs; acceptability; proportions requiring subsequent ophthalmologist assessment, unable to undergo imaging, and with inadequate images or indeterminate findings. RESULTS: The new pathway showed sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-99%) and specificity of 31% (95% CI, 23%-40%) to detect DME. For PDR, sensitivity and specificity using 7-field ETDRS images (85% [95% CI, 77%-91%] and 48% [95% CI, 41%-56%], respectively) or UWF images (83% [95% CI, 75%-89%] and 54% [95% CI, 46%-61%], respectively) were comparable. For detection of high-risk PDR, sensitivity and specificity were higher when using UWF images (87% [95% CI, 78%-93%] and 49% [95% CI, 42%-56%], respectively, for UWF versus 80% [95% CI, 69-88%] and 40% [95% CI, 34%-47%], respectively, for 7-field ETDRS images). Participants preferred ophthalmologists' assessments; in their absence, they preferred immediate feedback by graders, maintaining periodic ophthalmologist evaluations. When compared with the current standard of care, the new pathway could save £1390 per 100 DME visits and between £461 and £1189 per 100 PDR visits. CONCLUSIONS: The new pathway has acceptable sensitivity and would release resources. Users' suggestions should guide implementation.

A systematic review of economic evaluations for donor human milk versus standard feeding in infants.

Reviews on the cost/outcome of donor human milk (DHM) for infants requiring care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting have been undertaken. However, the cost-effectiveness evidence is unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published full economic evaluations of DHM versus standard feeding in infants in neonatal care with the aim of undertaking a narrative synthesis of the cost-effectiveness evidence and critical appraisal of the methods used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and PROSPERO databases were searched. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations (model-based or trial-based), the participants were infants in neonatal units requiring nutritional support, the intervention was DHM and the comparator was any standard feeding option. There were no restrictions on outcome measures. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, assessed quality and cross-checked results, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Information extracted focused on study context, and economic evaluation methods and results. Of 2861 studies, seven were included. Six (86%) studies originated from high-income countries. Four (57%) of the studies were model-based. Although we could not directly compare the different studies, due to the heterogenous nature of health and economic parameters used in the studies, all DHM interventions indicated cost-effective or cost saving results. This review suggests that economic evaluation of DHM interventions is an expanding area of research. Although these interventions show promise, future economic evaluations of DHM interventions need to explicitly provide more details on long-term costs and consequences.

A brief introduction to health economics.

To convince policy-makers or funders of health care of the value of orthopaedic interventions, we need to consider value for money (cost-effectiveness), as well as clinical effectiveness. This article provides an introduction to health economics to set the scene for papers on the use of allografts in the knee.

Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. METHODS: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

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

The cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee.

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

Meniscal allograft transplantation after meniscectomy: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) after meniscal injury and subsequent meniscectomy. METHODS: Systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: There is considerable evidence from observational studies, of improvement in symptoms after meniscal allograft transplantation, but we found only one small pilot trial with a randomised comparison with a control group that received non-surgical care. MAT has not yet been proven to be chondroprotective. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not possible due to a lack of data on the effectiveness of MAT compared to non-surgical care. CONCLUSION: The benefits of MAT include symptomatic relief and restoration of at least some previous activities, which will be reflected in utility values and hence in quality-adjusted life years, and in the longer term, prevention or delay of osteoarthritis, and avoidance or postponement of some knee replacements, with resulting savings. It is likely to be cost-effective, but this cannot be proven on the basis of present evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A prospective pilot study of home monitoring in adults with cystic fibrosis (HOME-CF): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Home monitoring has the potential to detect early pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), with consequent improvements in health outcomes and healthcare associated costs. This study aims to assess the effects of home monitoring on hospital admissions, quality of life, antibiotic requirements, exacerbation frequency, lung function, nutritional outcomes, anxiety, depression, costs and health outcomes, as well as the qualitative effects on the patient experience. METHODS: This randomised controlled mixed-methods trial aims to recruit 100 adults with CF cared for in one large regional CF centre. Participants are randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention group (twice-weekly home monitoring of symptoms measured by the Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Symptom Diary - Chronic Respiratory Infection Symptom Score (CFRSD-CRISS) and Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1)) or a control group (routine clinical care) for the 12-month study period. Measurements are recorded at study visits at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Spirometry, body weight, co-morbidities, medications, hospital inpatient days, courses of antibiotics (oral and intravenous), pulmonary exacerbations (defined by the modified Fuchs criteria) are recorded at each study visit. Health status, capability and health economics are measured at each study visit by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A), EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and an adapted resource use questionnaire. The patient experience is assessed by semi-structured qualitative interviews at baseline and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Results from this study will help to determine the effect of home monitoring on inpatient bed days and quality of life in adults with CF, as well as other relevant health and health economic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02994706 ), date registered 16th July 2014.

Exploring two cost-adjustment methods for selection bias in a small sample: using a fetal cardiology dataset.

OBJECTIVES: In economic evaluations of healthcare technologies, situations arise where data are not randomized and numbers are small. For this reason, obtaining reliable cost estimates of such interventions may be difficult. This study explores two approaches in obtaining cost estimates for pregnant women screened for a fetal cardiac anomaly. METHODS: Two methods to reduce selection bias in health care: regression analyses and propensity scoring methods were applied to the total mean costs of pregnancy for women who received specialist cardiac advice by means of two referral modes: telemedicine and direct referral. RESULTS: The observed total mean costs of pregnancy were higher for the telemedicine group than the direct referral group (4,918 versus 4,311 GBP). The regression model found that referral mode was not a significant predictor of costs and the cost difference between the two groups was reduced from 607 to 94 GBP. After applying the various propensity score methods, the groups were balanced in terms of sizes and compositions; and again the cost differences between the two groups were smaller ranging from -62 (matching "by hand") to 333 GBP (kernel matching). CONCLUSIONS: Regression analyses and propensity scoring methods applied to the dataset may have increased the homogeneity and reduced the variance in the adjusted costs; that is, these methods have allowed the observed selection bias to be reduced. I believe that propensity scoring methods worked better for this dataset, because after matching the two groups were similar in terms of background characteristics and the adjusted cost differences were smaller.

Fostering autonomous motivation, physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol and rationale for a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: People with rheumatoid arthritis are at greater risk of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease than the general population. Sustained physical activity increases cardio-respiratory fitness and reduces cardiovascular disease risk factors. However, little is known about how we can effectively promote long-term participation in physical activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The literature consistently calls for physical activity interventions, and their implementation, to be theoretically-grounded. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper documents the protocol of a randomised control trial that investigates whether a Self-determination Theory-based intervention fosters the adoption and maintenance of physical activity (3, 6 and 12 months) sufficient to provide sustained cardiovascular and personal well-being benefits in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The cost effectiveness of the intervention will also be determined. The trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04121489. DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will provide guidance regarding key social environmental factors that can be manipulated to support motivational processes conducive to positive health behaviour change and optimal functioning in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Critical appraisal of published systematic reviews assessing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years several systematic reviews have been published on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies. Most reviews have concluded that there is not much difference in the cost-effectiveness when delivering health services via telemedicine or by conventional means. We are not aware of any systematic review looking at the systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness of telemedicine. This study was designed to identify published systematic reviews on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies and to undertake a quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, combining "review" terms with "telemedicine" terms to identify systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identified 4,116 potential abstracts. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, which looked at the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in general. All reviews were similar in terms of their stated purpose, and the objectives were clear. Three of the reviews did not use a checklist for the economic evaluation studies included in their review. The quality assessment found that five of the nine reviews had minimal flaws. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the general quality of reporting of the reviews was fine, we have found that conclusions cannot be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine applications based on the methodological flaws in the economic analysis of the studies included in the reviews. Over time, reporting of cost-effectiveness has generally improved; however, there is still room for improvement, and authors need to use the recommended checklists for economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of evidence from randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to systematically review trial-based economic evaluations of manual therapy relative to other alternative interventions used for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major medical, health-related, science and health economic electronic databases. RESULTS: Twenty-five publications were included (11 trial-based economic evaluations). The studies compared cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility of manual therapy interventions to other treatment alternatives in reducing pain (spinal, shoulder, ankle). Manual therapy techniques (e.g., osteopathic spinal manipulation, physiotherapy manipulation and mobilization techniques, and chiropractic manipulation with or without other treatments) were more cost-effective than usual general practitioner (GP) care alone or with exercise, spinal stabilization, GP advice, advice to remain active, or brief pain management for improving low back and shoulder pain/disability. Chiropractic manipulation was found to be less costly and more effective than alternative treatment compared with either physiotherapy or GP care in improving neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence from this review shows some economic advantage of manual therapy relative to other interventions used for the management of musculoskeletal conditions, indicating that some manual therapy techniques may be more cost-effective than usual GP care, spinal stabilization, GP advice, advice to remain active, or brief pain management for improving low back and shoulder pain/disability. However, at present, there is a paucity of evidence on the cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility evaluations for manual therapy interventions. Further improvements in the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations of manual therapy are warranted in order to facilitate adequate evidence-based decisions among policy makers, health care practitioners, and patients.

Adverse and serious adverse events incidence of pharmacological interventions for managing chronic and episodic migraine in adults: a systematic review.

Background: Migraine is the second most common prevalent disorder worldwide and is a top cause of disability with a substantial economic burden. Many preventive migraine medications have notable side effects that affect different body organs. Method: We systematically searched for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using terms for migraine/headache and preventive medications. Using eligibility criteria, two reviewers independently assessed the articles. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was applied to assess the quality of the studies. Data were classified by system organ class (SOC). Results: Thirty-two RCTs with 21 780 participants met the eligibility criteria for the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Additionally, 33 RCTs with 22 615 participants were included to synthesise the incidence of serious AEs (SAEs). The percentage of attributed AEs and SAEs to each SOC for 10 preventive drugs with different dosing regimens was calculated. Amitriptyline and topiramate had a higher incidence of nervous system disorders; Topiramate was also associated with a higher incidence of psychiatric disorders. All drugs showed a certain incidence of infections and infestations, with Onabotulinumtoxin A (BTA) having the lowest rate. BTA had a higher incidence of musculoskeletal disorders than the other drugs. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) such as fremanezumab and galcanezumab were linked to more general disorders and administration site conditions than other drugs. Conclusion: Notably, the observed harm to SOCs varies among these preventive drugs. We suggest conducting head-to-head RCTs to evaluate the safety profile of oral medications, BTA, and CGRP MAbs in episodic and/or chronic migraine populations. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021265993.

Interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: umbrella review of systematic reviews.

Background: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death globally. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to compare the effectiveness of different pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Methods: A structured search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects archive was conducted to find systematic reviews that reported the effect of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease from inception to March 2021. References of included studies were also checked. The included systematic reviews' methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 instrument (range, 0-16). The outcomes of each included review's meta-analysis were extracted and described narratively. Results: This study analysed 95 systematic reviews, including 41 on non-pharmacological interventions and 54 on pharmacological interventions for cardiovascular health. The majority of the reviews focused on lipid-lowering interventions (n = 25) and antiplatelet medications (n = 21), followed by nutritional supplements, dietary interventions, physical activity, health promotion and other interventions. Only 1 of the 10 reviews addressing cardiovascular mortality showed a potential benefit, while the others found no effect. Antiplatelets were found to have a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality in 2 out of 12 meta-analyses and on major cardiovascular disease events in 8 out of 17 reviews. Lipid-lowering interventions showed beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease mortality, all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular disease events in varying numbers of the reviews. Glucose-lowering medications demonstrated significant benefits for major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease events and mortality. However, the combination of dietary interventions, physical activities, nutritional supplements and polypills showed little or no significant benefit for major cardiovascular outcomes or mortality. Future work and limitations: More research is needed to determine whether the effect of treatment varies depending on population characteristics. The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution because the majority of studies of non-pharmacological interventions compare primary prevention with usual care, which may include recommended pharmacological treatment in higher-risk patients (e.g. statins and/or antihypertensive medications, etc.). In addition, randomised controlled trial evidence may be better suited to the study of pharmacological interventions than dietary and lifestyle interventions. Conclusions: This umbrella review captured the variability in different interventions on randomised controlled trial evidence on interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and identified areas that may benefit from further research. Specifically, this review focused on randomised controlled trial evidence on interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Researchers may use these findings as a resource to direct new intervention studies and network meta-analyses to compare the efficacy of various interventions based on these findings. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme as award number 17/148/05.

Heart and blood vessel diseases are the top cause of death worldwide. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various drug-based and non-drug-based methods in preventing these diseases. We searched databases like Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects archive to find reviews about different ways to prevent heart and blood vessel diseases up until March 2021. The results showed that only 1 out of 10 reviews found a possible benefit in reducing heart-related deaths, while the other 9 found no effect. Medicines that lower blood sugar levels had a positive impact on reducing major heart events, heart disease and death. However, combining dietary changes, exercise, nutritional supplements and polypills had little or no effect on reducing heart-related events, deaths due to heart disease or deaths from all causes. This review examined the available evidence on ways to prevent heart and blood vessel diseases and identified areas where more research could be beneficial. Future studies could compare the effectiveness of different interventions using new methods and analyses.