Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688.

Fulvestrant for Untreated Hormone-Receptor Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence on fulvestrant for untreated hormone-receptor positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer was submitted to the single technology appraisal process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence by the manufacturer of fulvestrant. The Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an independent Evidence Review Group to critique the company's submitted evidence. Fulvestrant was compared directly with anastrozole in two randomised controlled trials and was compared indirectly by means of a network meta-analysis with anastrozole, letrozole and tamoxifen. This article summarises the Evidence Review Group's review of the company's submission and summarises the guidance the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee issued in January 2018. The Evidence Review Group had several concerns, the most important of which related to the degree to which fulvestrant might confer a benefit in overall survival. This was because mature data were not available from the key phase III trial FALCON. The economic model was sensitive to changes in overall survival and the Evidence Review Group considered the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and likely to increase once mature results from FALCON become available. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee concluded that fulvestrant could not be recommended for treating locally advanced or metastatic estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have not received previous endocrine therapy.

Two interferon gamma release assays for predicting active tuberculosis: the UK PREDICT TB prognostic test study.

BACKGROUND: Despite a recent decline in the annual incidence of tuberculosis (TB) in the UK, rates remain higher than in most Western European countries. The detection and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI) is an essential component of the UK TB control programme. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic value and cost-effectiveness of the current two interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) compared with the standard tuberculin skin test (TST) for predicting active TB among untreated individuals at increased risk of TB: (1) contacts of active TB cases and (2) new entrants to the UK from high-TB-burden countries. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study and economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants were recruited in TB clinics, general practices and community settings. Contacts of active TB cases and migrants who were born in high-TB-burden countries arriving in the UK were eligible to take part if they were aged ≥ 16 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes include incidence rate ratios comparing the incidence of active TB in those participants with a positive test result and those with a negative test result for each assay, and combination of tests and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for each screening strategy. RESULTS: A total of 10,045 participants were recruited between May 2010 and July 2015. Among 9610 evaluable participants, 97 (1.0%) developed active TB. For the primary analysis, all test data were available for 6380 participants, with 77 participants developing active TB. A positive result for TSTa (positive if induration is ≥ 5 mm) was a significantly poorer predictor of progression to active TB than a positive result for any of the other tests. Compared with TSTb [positive if induration is ≥ 6 mm without prior bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) alone, T-SPOT®.TB (Oxford Immunotec Ltd, Oxford, UK), TSTa + T-SPOT.TB, TSTa + IGRA and the three combination strategies including TSTb were significantly superior predictors of progression. Compared with the T-SPOT.TB test alone, TSTa + T-SPOT.TB, TSTb + QuantiFERON® TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT; QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany) and TSTb + IGRA were significantly superior predictors of progression and, compared with QFT-GIT alone, T-SPOT.TB, TSTa + T-SPOT.TB, TSTa + QFT-GIT, TSTa + IGRA, TSTb + T-SPOT.TB, TSTb + QFT-GIT and TSTb + IGRA were significantly superior predictors of progression. When evaluating the negative predictive performance of tests and strategies, negative results for TSTa + QFT-GIT were significantly poorer predictors of non-progression than negative results for TSTa, T-SPOT.TB and TSTa + IGRA. The most cost-effective LTBI testing strategies are the dual-testing strategies. The cost and QALY differences between the LTBI testing strategies were small; in particular, QFT-GIT, TSTb + T-SPOT.TB and TSTb + QFT-GIT had very similar incremental net benefit estimates. CONCLUSION: This study found modest differences between tests, or combinations of tests, in identifying individuals who would go on to develop active TB. However, a two-step approach that combined TSTb with an IGRA was the most cost-effective testing option. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH: The two-step TSTb strategy, which stratified the TST by prior BCG vaccination followed by an IGRA, was the most cost-effective approach. The limited ability of current tests to predict who will progress limits the clinical utility of tests. The implications of these results for the NHS England/Public Health England national TB screening programme for migrants should be investigated. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as NCT01162265. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.