Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial.

AIM: We assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (-0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: In NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Close Contact Casting vs Surgery for Initial Treatment of Unstable Ankle Fractures in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ankle fractures cause substantial morbidity in older persons. Surgical fixation is the contemporary intervention but is associated with infection and other healing complications. Objective: To determine whether initial fracture treatment with close contact casting, a molded below-knee cast with minimal padding, offers outcome equivalent to that with immediate surgery, with fewer complications and less health resource use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, equivalence, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessors. A pilot study commenced in May 2004, followed by multicenter recruitment from July 2010 to November 2013; follow-up was completed May 2014. Recruitment was from 24 UK major trauma centers and general hospitals. Participants were 620 adults older than 60 years with acute, overtly unstable ankle fracture. Exclusions were serious limb or concomitant disease or substantial cognitive impairment. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to surgery (n = 309) or casting (n = 311). Casts were applied in the operating room under general or spinal anesthesia by a trained surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary 6-month, per-protocol outcome was the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score at 6 months (OMAS; range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better outcomes and fewer symptoms), equivalence prespecified as ±6 points. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, pain, ankle motion, mobility, complications, health resource use, and patient satisfaction. Results: Among 620 adults (mean age, 71 years; 460 [74%] women) who were randomized, 593 (96%) completed the study. Nearly all participants (579/620; 93%) received allocated treatment; 52 of 275 (19%) who initially received casting later converted to surgery, which was allowable in the casting treatment pathway to manage early loss of fracture reduction. At 6 months, casting resulted in ankle function equivalent to that with surgery (OMAS score, 66.0 [95% CI, 63.6-68.5] for surgery vs 64.5 [95% CI, 61.8-67.2] for casting; mean difference, -0.6 [95% CI, -3.9 to 2.6]; P for equivalence = .001). Infection and wound breakdown were more common with surgery (29/298 [10%] vs 4/275 [1%]; odds ratio [OR], 7.3 [95% CI, 2.6-20.2]), as were additional operating room procedures (18/298 [6%] for surgery and 3/275 [1%] for casting; OR, 5.8 [95% CI, 1.8-18.7]). Radiologic malunion was more common in the casting group (38/249 [15%] vs 8/274 [3%] for surgery; OR, 6.0 [95% CI, 2.8-12.9]). Casting required less operating room time compared with surgery (mean difference [minutes/participant], -54 [95% CI, -58 to -50]). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes: quality of life, pain, ankle motion, mobility, and patient satisfaction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with unstable ankle fracture, the use of close contact casting compared with surgery resulted in similar functional outcomes at 6 months. Close contact casting may be an appropriate treatment for such patients. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN04180738.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography in guiding management to optimise outcomes in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI) developmental trial: cost-effectiveness using a mixed trial- and model-based methods.

BACKGROUND: In the Fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography in guiding management to optimise outcomes in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS) clinical trial, FFR was shown to significantly reduce coronary revascularisation, compared to visual interpretation of standard coronary angiography without FFR. We estimated the cost-effectiveness from a UK National Health Service perspective, based on the results of FAMOUS. METHODS: A mixed trial- and model-based approach using decision and statistical modelling was used. Within-trial (1-year) costs and QALYs were assembled at the individual level and then modelled on subsequent management strategy [coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or medical therapy (MT)] and major adverse coronary events (death, MI, stroke and revascularisation). One-year resource uses included: material, hospitalisation, medical, health professional service use and events. Utilities were derived from individual EQ5D responses. Unit costs were derived from the literature. Outcomes were extended to a lifetime on the basis of MACE during the 1st year. Costs and QALYs were modelled using generalized linear models whilst MACE was modelled using logistic regression. The analysis adopted a payer perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5 %. RESULTS: Costs were related to the subsequent management strategy and MACE whilst QALYs were not. FFR led to a modest cost increase, albeit an imprecise increase, over both the trial [£112 (-£129 to £357)] and lifetime horizons [£133 (-£199 to £499)]. FFR led to a small, albeit imprecise, increase in QALYs over both the trial [0.02 (-0.03 to 0.06)] and lifetime horizons [0.03 (-0.21 to 0.28)]. The mean ICER was £7516/QALY and £4290/QALY over the trial and lifetime horizons, respectively. Decision remained high; FFR had 64 and 59 % probability of cost-effectiveness over trial and lifetime horizons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FFR was cost-effective at the mean, albeit with considerable decision uncertainty. Uncertainty can be reduced with more information on long-term health events.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of out-of-hospital 12-lead ECG and advance notification in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To present a review of out-of-hospital identification of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients transported by emergency medical services with 12-lead ECG and advance notification versus standard or no cardiac monitoring. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched, using controlled vocabulary and keywords. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Outcomes included short-term mortality (≤30 days), door-to-balloon/needle time and/or first medical contact-to-balloon/needle time. Pooled estimates were determined, where appropriate. Results were stratified by percutaneous coronary intervention or fibrinolysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 1,857 citations, of which 68 full-texts were reviewed and 16 studies met the final criteria: 15 included data on percutaneous coronary intervention and 3 on fibrinolysis (2 included both). Where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed, out-of-hospital 12-lead ECG and advance notification was associated with a 39% reduction in short-term mortality (8 studies; n=6,339; risk ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89; P=.01; I(2)=30%) compared with standard or no cardiac monitoring. Where fibrinolysis was performed, out-of-hospital 12-lead ECG and advance notification was associated with a 29% reduction in short-term mortality (1 study; n=17,026; risk ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.93; P=.01). First medical contact-to-balloon, door-to-balloon, and door-to-needle times were consistently reduced, though large heterogeneity generally precluded pooling. CONCLUSION: The present study adds to previous reviews by identifying and appraising the strength and quality of a larger body of evidence. Out-of-hospital identification with 12-lead ECG and aadvance notification was found to be associated with reductions in short-term mortality and first medical contact-to-balloon, door-to-balloon, and door-to-needle time.

Long-Term Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Risdiplam and Nusinersen in Children with Type 1 Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a severe genetic neuromuscular disease characterized by a loss of motor neurons and progressive muscle weakness. Children with untreated type 1 SMA never sit independently and require increasing levels of ventilatory support as the disease progresses. Without intervention, and lacking ventilatory support, death typically occurs before the age of 2 years. There are currently no head-to-head trials comparing available treatments in SMA. Indirect treatment comparisons are therefore needed to provide information on the relative efficacy and safety of SMA treatments for healthcare decision-making. METHODS: The long-term efficacy and safety of risdiplam versus nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA was evaluated using indirect treatment comparison methodology to adjust for differences between population baseline characteristics, to reduce any potential bias in the comparative analysis. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using risdiplam data from 58 children in FIREFISH (NCT02913482) and published aggregate nusinersen data from 81 children obtained from the ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and SHINE (NCT02594124) clinical trials with at least 36 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Children with type 1 SMA treated with risdiplam had a 78% reduction in the rate of death, an 81% reduction in the rate of death or permanent ventilation, and a 57% reduction in the rate of serious adverse events compared with children treated with nusinersen. Children treated with risdiplam also had a 45% higher rate of achieving a Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination, Module 2 motor milestone response and a 186% higher rate of achieving a ≥ 4-point improvement in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders compared with children treated with nusinersen. CONCLUSION: Long-term data supported risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA. Video abstract available for this article. Video abstract (MP4 184542 KB).

Risdiplam and nusinersen are two approved treatments for patients with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). There are currently no head-to-head trials that compare the outcomes of these treatments in patients. This study conducted a statistical comparison of the efficacy and safety of risdiplam and nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA who received treatment for at least 36 months. Risdiplam data were collected from 58 children who participated in the FIREFISH trial (NCT02913482). Published combined data were collected from 81 children treated with nusinersen who participated in the ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and SHINE (NCT02594124) trials. Outcomes from the two studies were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methodology. MAIC adjusts for differences in baseline characteristics between patients in two trials to make the populations more similar and reduce bias in the comparison. Results suggested that children with type 1 SMA treated with risdiplam had a 78% reduction in the rate of death and an 81% reduction in the rate of death or permanent ventilation compared with children treated with nusinersen. With risdiplam, children also had a higher rate of achieving motor function responses, and a longer time to the first serious adverse event compared with children treated with nusinersen. These results support risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA over 36 months of follow-up. Access to long-term data beyond 36 months would allow for additional indirect comparisons between SMA treatments. These comparisons are key to guiding treatment decision-making in the absence of head-to-head trials.

Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures: Inviting Patients to the Conversation.

Background: Digital measures offer an unparalleled opportunity to create a more holistic picture of how people who are patients behave in their real-world environments, thereby establishing a better connection between patients, caregivers, and the clinical evidence used to drive drug development and disease management. Reaching this vision will require achieving a new level of co-creation between the stakeholders who design, develop, use, and make decisions using evidence from digital measures. Summary: In September 2022, the second in a series of meetings hosted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium, and sponsored by Wellcome Trust, entitled "Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures," was held in Zurich, Switzerland, with a broad range of stakeholders sharing their experience across four case studies to examine how patient centricity is essential in shaping development and validation of digital evidence generation tools. Key Messages: In this paper, we discuss progress and the remaining barriers to widespread use of digital measures for evidence generation in clinical development and care delivery. We also present key discussion points and takeaways in order to continue discourse and provide a basis for dissemination and outreach to the wider community and other stakeholders. The work presented here shows us a blueprint for how and why the patient voice can be thoughtfully integrated into digital measure development and that continued multistakeholder engagement is critical for further progress.

Health and Budget Impact of Liquid-Biopsy-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profile (CGP) Testing in Tissue-Limited Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC) Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Molecular genetic testing using tissue biopsies can be challenging for patients due to unfavorable tumor sites, the invasive nature of a tissue biopsy, and the added time of booking a repeat biopsy (re-biopsy). Centers in Canada have found insufficient tissue rates to be approximately 10%, and even among successful biopsies, insufficient DNA in tissue samples is approximately 16%, triggering the lengthy process of re-biopsies. Using aNSCLC as an example, this study sought to characterize the health and budget impact of alternative liquid-biopsy(LBx)-based comprehensive genomic profile (CGP) testing in tissue-limited patients (TL-LBx-CGP) from a Canadian publicly funded healthcare perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost and life-years gained as a population associated with adopting TL-LBx-CGP. The eligible patient population was modeled using a top-down epidemiological approach based on the published literature and expert clinician input. Treatment allocation was modeled based on biomarker prevalence in the published literature, and the availability of funded therapies. Costs included molecular testing, as well as drug, administrative, and supportive costs, and relevant health data included median overall survival and median progression-free survival data. RESULTS: Incorporation of TL-LBx-CGP demonstrated an overall impact of $14.7 million with 168 life-years gained to the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system in the 3-year time horizon.

Costs of in-house genomic profiling and implications for economic evaluation: a case example of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

OBJECTIVES: Genomic profiling in oncology is vital for determining eligible patients for mutation-specific targeted therapies. Use of commercial genomic testing has the potential to improve patient outcomes. Economic evaluations of in-house genomic profiling typically only include material costs while external commercial services include many other factors. Using non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as an example, this study sought to characterize the unique challenges of costing testing services and their impact on results of economic evaluations. METHODS: Structured interviews with Canadian oncologists, pathologists, and laboratory directors were conducted to identify material and non-material costs associated with genomic-testing laboratories to allow estimation of a more complete cost of in-house testing, with NSCLC cost-per-test calculated using annual operational costs and NSCLC-specific testing volume. A health and budget impact model of in-house versus external commercial profiling services was used to compare the impact of non-material costs on results. RESULTS: In-house testing costs, limited to materials, was $133/single-gene test and $1,400/panel. For a laboratory running 1,300 in-house tests/year, total annual non-material costs included equipment maintenance ($6,842), labor ($502,313; technicians, administrative, and medical staff), shipping/reporting and software updates ($146,050), for an additional $519/test. The combined cost of $652/single-gene and $1,919/panel was compared to a cost of $6,194 for a commercial external test. Based on current Canadian testing patterns and anticipated utilization of external testing, inclusion of in-house non-material costs reduced the estimated 3-year budget impact by 12%. CONCLUSION: When conducting economic evaluation to assess the value of introducing external tests, it is critical that non-material costs of standard testing strategies be measured and incorporated.

Cost-effectiveness of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing for depression from the Canadian public payer perspective.

Aim: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combinatorial pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing, versus treatment as usual (TAU), to guide treatment for patients with depression, from the Canadian public healthcare system perspective. Materials & methods: Clinical and economic data associated with depression were extracted from published literature. Clinical (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) and economic (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) outcomes were modeled using combinatorial PGx and TAU treatment strategies across a 5-year time horizon. Results: With the combinatorial PGx strategy to guide treatment, patients were projected to gain 0.14-0.19 QALYs versus TAU. Accounting for test price, combinatorial PGx saved CAD $1,687-$3,056 versus TAU. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$11,861 to -$16,124/QALY gained. Conclusion: Combinatorial PGx testing was more efficacious and less costly compared with the TAU for depression.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10 years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically. Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.

Economic evaluation of rituximab in addition to standard of care chemotherapy for adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

AIMS: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an aggressive form of leukemia with a poor prognosis in adult patients. The addition of the monoclonal antibody rituximab to standard chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in adults with ALL. However, it is unknown whether the addition of rituximab is cost-effective. The objective was to determine the economic impact of rituximab in addition to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy vs SOC alone in newly-diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD20-positive, B-cell precursor ALL. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed, based upon the Canadian healthcare system. It included the following health states over a lifetime horizon (max ≈60 years): event-free survival (EFS), relapsed/resistant disease, cure, and death. SOC was either hyper-CVAD or the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL consortium. EFS, overall survival, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates were derived from a large randomized controlled trial. Costs of the model included: first-line treatment and administration, disease management, second-line and third-line treatment and administration, palliative care, and SAE-related treatments. Inputs were sourced from provincial and national public data, the literature, and cancer agency input. RESULTS: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by 2.20 QALYs with rituximab in addition to SOC. The resulting mean Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was C$21,828/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$100,000/QALY, the probability of being cost-effective was 98%. Decision outcomes were robust to the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, including the SOC backbone as either hyper-CVAD or DFCI. LIMITATIONS: The results of this analysis are limited by generalizability of the chemotherapy backbone to Canadian practice. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with ALL, rituximab in addition to SOC was found to be a cost-effective intervention, compared to SOC alone. The addition of rituximab is associated with increased life years and increased QALYs at a reasonable incremental cost.

Bayesian Solutions for Handling Uncertainty in Survival Extrapolation.

OBJECTIVE: Survival extrapolation using a single, best-fit model ignores 2 sources of model uncertainty: uncertainty in the true underlying distribution and uncertainty about the stability of the model parameters over time. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) has been used to account for the former, but it can also account for the latter. We investigated BMA using a published comparison of the Charnley and Spectron hip prostheses using the original 8-year follow-up registry data. METHODS: A wide variety of alternative distributions were fitted. Two additional distributions were used to address uncertainty about parameter stability: optimistic and skeptical. The optimistic (skeptical) model represented the model distribution with the highest (lowest) estimated probabilities of survival but reestimated using, as prior information, the most optimistic (skeptical) parameter estimated for intermediate follow-up periods. Distributions were then averaged assuming the same posterior probabilities for the optimistic, skeptical, and noninformative models. Cost-effectiveness was compared using both the original 8-year and extended 16-year follow-up data. RESULTS: We found that all models obtained similar revision-free years during the observed period. In contrast, there was variability over the decision time horizon. Over the observed period, we detected considerable uncertainty in the shape parameter for Spectron. After BMA, Spectron was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 with 93% probability, whereas the best-fit model was 100%; by contrast, with a 16-year follow-up, it was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: This case study casts doubt on the ability of the single best-fit model selected by information criteria statistics to adequately capture model uncertainty. Under this scenario, BMA weighted by posterior probabilities better addressed model uncertainty. However, there is still value in regularly updating health economic models, even where decision uncertainty is low.

The Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial: a pragmatic, multicentre, equivalence randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing close contact casting with open surgical reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of unstable ankle fractures in patients aged over 60 years.

BACKGROUND: Close contact casting (CCC) may offer an alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery for unstable ankle fractures in older adults. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to (1) determine if CCC for unstable ankle fractures in adults aged over 60 years resulted in equivalent clinical outcome compared with ORIF, (2) estimate cost-effectiveness to the NHS and society and (3) explore participant experiences. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, equivalence randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Trauma and orthopaedic departments of 24 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged over 60 years with unstable ankle fracture. Those with serious limb or concomitant disease or substantial cognitive impairment were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: CCC was conducted under anaesthetic in theatre by surgeons who attended training. ORIF was as per local practice. Participants were randomised in 1 : 1 allocation via remote telephone randomisation. Sequence generation was by random block size, with stratification by centre and fracture pattern. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up was conducted at 6 weeks and, by blinded outcome assessors, at 6 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), a patient-reported assessment of ankle function, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (as measured by the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items), pain, ankle range of motion and mobility (as measured by the timed up and go test), patient satisfaction and radiological measures. In accordance with equivalence trial US Food and Drug Administration guidance, primary analysis was per protocol. RESULTS: We recruited 620 participants, 95 from the pilot and 525 from the multicentre phase, between June 2010 and November 2013. The majority of participants, 579 out of 620 (93%), received the allocated treatment; 52 out of 275 (19%) who received CCC later converted to ORIF because of loss of fracture reduction. CCC resulted in equivalent ankle function compared with ORIF at 6 months {OMAS 64.5 points [standard deviation (SD) 22.4 points] vs. OMAS 66.0 points (SD 21.1 points); mean difference -0.65 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.98 to 2.68 points; standardised effect size -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15}. There were no differences in quality of life, ankle motion, pain, mobility and patient satisfaction. Infection and/or wound problems were more common with ORIF [29/298 (10%) vs. 4/275 (1%)], as were additional operating theatre procedures [17/298 (6%) vs. 3/275 (1%)]. Malunion was more common with CCC [38/249 (15%) vs. 8/274 (3%); p < 0.001]. Malleolar non-union was lower in the ORIF group [lateral: 0/274 (0%) vs. 8/248 (3%); p = 0.002; medial: 3/274 (1%) vs. 18/248 (7%); p < 0.001]. During the trial, CCC showed modest mean cost savings [NHS mean difference -£644 (95% CI -£1390 to £76); society mean difference -£683 (95% CI -£1851 to £536)]. Estimates showed some imprecision. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years following CCC were no different from ORIF. Over common willingness-to-pay thresholds, the probability that CCC was cost-effective was very high (> 95% from NHS perspective and 85% from societal perspective). Experiences of treatments were similar; both groups endured the impact of fracture, uncertainty regarding future function and the need for further interventions. LIMITATIONS: Assessors at 6 weeks were necessarily not blinded. The learning-effect analysis was inconclusive because of limited CCC applications per surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: CCC provides a clinically equivalent outcome to ORIF at reduced cost to the NHS and to society at 6 months. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up of trial participants is under way to address concerns over potential later complications or additional procedures and their potential to impact on ankle function. Further study of the patient factors, radiological fracture patterns and outcomes, treatment responses and prognosis would also contribute to understanding the treatment pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04180738. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This report was developed in association with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Unit funding scheme. The pilot phase was funded by the AO Research Foundation.

Intra-arterial thrombolysis vs. standard treatment or intravenous thrombolysis in adults with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has suggested that intra-arterial thrombolysis may provide benefit beyond intravenous thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients. Previous meta-analyses have only compared intra-arterial thrombolysis with standard treatment without thrombolysis. The objective was to review the benefits and harms of intra-arterial thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intra-arterial thrombolysis with either standard treatment or intravenous thrombolysis following acute ischemic stroke. Primary outcomes included poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 3-6), mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Study quality was assessed, and outcomes were stratified by comparison treatment received. RESULTS: Four trials (n = 351) comparing intra-arterial thrombolysis with standard treatment were identified. Intra-arterial thrombolysis reduced the risk of poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 3-6) [relative risk (RR) = 0·80; 95% confidence interval = 0·67-0·95; P = 0·01]. Mortality was not increased (RR = 0·82; 95% confidence interval = 0·56-1·21; P = 0·32); however, risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nearly four times more likely (RR = 3·90; 95% confidence interval = 1·41-10·76; P = 0·006). Two trials (n = 81) comparing intra-arterial thrombolysis with intravenous thrombolysis were identified. Intra-arterial thrombolysis was not found to reduce poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 3-6) (RR = 0·68; 95% confidence interval = 0·46-1·00; P = 0·05). Mortality was not increased (RR = 1·12; 95% confidence interval = 0·47-2·68; P = 0·79); neither was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1·13; 95% confidence interval = 0·32-3·99; P = 0·85). Differences in time from symptom onset-to-treatment and type of thrombolytic administered were found across the trials. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis finds a modest benefit of intra-arterial thrombolysis over standard treatment, although it does not find a clear benefit of intra-arterial thrombolysis over intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients. However, few trials, small sample sizes, and indirectness limit the strength of evidence.