Spinal fixation surgery for acute traumatic spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: If the spine is unstable following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), surgical fusion and bracing may be necessary to obtain vertical stability and prevent re-injury of the spinal cord from repeated movement of the unstable bony elements. It has been suggested that this spinal fixation surgery may promote early rehabilitation and mobilisation. OBJECTIVES: To answer the question: is there a difference in functional outcome and other commonly measured outcomes between people who have a spinal cord injury and have had spinal fixation surgery and those who have not? SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched: AMED, CCTR, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HEED, HMIC, MEDLINE, NRR, NHS EED. Searches were updated in May 2003 and MEDLINE was searched again in May 2007. The reference lists of retrieved articles were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials that compared surgical spinal fixation, with or without decompression, to any other treatment, in patients with a traumatic SCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies. One reviewer assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials or controlled trials were identified that compared surgical spinal fixation surgery to other treatments in patients with a traumatic SCI. All of the studies identified were retrospective observational studies and of poor quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not enable conclusions to be drawn about the benefits or harms of spinal fixation surgery in patients with traumatic SCI. Well-designed, prospective experimental studies with appropriately matched controls are needed.

A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken and an economic model constructed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis) in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The main comparators considered were other established chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-one resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2005. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and quality assessed. Where appropriate, outcomes were synthesised using formal analytic approaches. A new economic model was developed in order to establish the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel compared with a range of potential comparators. A separate review was undertaken to identify sources of utility data required to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken to explore the robustness of the main analysis to alternative assumptions related to quality of life. Monte Carlo simulation was used to propagate uncertainty in input parameters through the model in such a way that the results of the analysis could be presented with their uncertainty. The impact of uncertainty surrounding the decision was established using value of information and implementation approaches. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria. A direct comparison of docetaxel plus prednisone versus mitoxantrone plus prednisone in an open-label randomised trial showed improved outcomes for docetaxel plus prednisone in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain and prostate-specific antigen decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel: docetaxel plus estramustine and docetaxel plus prednisone plus estramustine, also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Indirect comparison suggested that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be superior to corticosteroids alone in terms of overall survival. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness were primarily informed by the results of the in-house model. This indicated that mitoxantrone plus a corticosteroid is probably cheaper and more effective than corticosteroid alone. Compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone/prednisolone, the use of docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone (3-weekly) appears cost-effective only if the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with docetaxel plus prednisone (3-weekly) remained fairly robust to these variations with estimates ranging from 28,000 pounds to 33,000 pounds per QALY. Value of information analysis revealed that further research is potentially valuable. Given a maximum acceptable ratio of 30,000 pounds per QALY, the expected value of information was estimated to be approximately 13 million pounds. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the research suggests that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be the most effective treatment for men with mHRPC. The economic model suggests that treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone is cost-effective in patients with mHRPC provided the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per additional QALY. Future research should include the direct assessment of quality of life and utility gain associated with different treatments, including the effect of adverse events of treatment, using generic instruments, which are suitable for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analyses.

A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH), dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX) and atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents (<18 years of age) diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (including hyperkinetic disorder). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering 1999--July 2004 for MPH, 1997--July 2004 for DEX and 1981--July 2004 for ATX. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed using modified criteria based on CRD Report No. 4. Clinical effectiveness data were reported separately for each drug and by the type of comparison. Data for MPH were also analysed separately based on whether it was administered as an immediate release (IR) or extended release (ER) formulation. For all drugs, the data were examined by dose. Data for the core outcomes of hyperactivity (using any scale), Clinical Global Impression [as a proxy of quality of life (QoL)] and adverse events were reported. For crossover studies, the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each outcome were data extracted for end of trial data (i.e. baseline data were not considered). For parallel studies, change scores were reported where given, otherwise means and SDs were presented for end of trial data. In addition, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each study. For adverse events, self-ratings were reported when used, otherwise, parent reports were utilised. Percentages of participants reporting adverse events were used to calculate numbers of events in each treatment arm. All the clinical effectiveness data and economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. A new model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative treatments in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year. To achieve this, a mixed treatment comparison model was used to estimate the differential mean response rates. Monte Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: In total, 65 papers met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that MPH and DEX are effective at reducing hyperactivity and improving QoL (as determined by Clinical Global Impression) in children, although the reliability of the MPH study results is not known and there were only a small number of DEX studies. There was consistent evidence that ATX was superior to placebo for hyperactivity and Clinical Global Impression. Studies on ATX more often reported the study methodology well, and the results were likely to be reliable. Very few studies made direct head-to-head comparisons between the drugs or examined a non-drug intervention in combination with MPH, DEX or ATX. Adequate and informative data regarding the potential adverse effects of the drugs were also lacking. The results of the economic evaluation clearly identified an optimal treatment strategy of DEX first-line, followed by IR-MPH for treatment failures, followed by ATX for repeat treatment failures. Where DEX is unsuitable as a first-line therapy, the optimal strategy is IR-MPH first-line, followed by DEX and then ATX. For patients contraindicated to stimulants, ATX is preferred to no treatment. For patients in whom a midday dose of medication is unworkable, ER-MPH is preferred to ATX, and ER-MPH12 appears more cost-effective than ER-MPH8. As identified in the clinical effectiveness review, the reporting of studies was poor, therefore this should be borne in mind when interpreting the model results. CONCLUSIONS: Drug therapy seems to be superior to no drug therapy, no significant differences between the various drugs in terms of efficacy or side effects were found, mainly owing to lack of evidence, and the additional benefits from behavioural therapy (in combination with drug therapy) are uncertain. Given the lack of evidence for any differences in effectiveness between the drugs, the economic model tended to be driven by drug costs, which differed considerably. Future trials examining MPH, DEX and ATX should include the assessment of tolerability and safety as a priority. Longer term follow-up of individuals participating in trials could further inform policy makers and health professionals. Such data could potentially distinguish between these drugs in a clinically useful way. In addition, research examining whether somatic complaints are actually related to drug treatment or to the disorder itself would be informative.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have inadequate response to standard treatment, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2004. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review evaluated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of etanercept and infliximab. The efficacy of DMARDs in the treatment of PsA was also reviewed and treatments were compared using Bayesian evidence synthesis methods. Following evaluation of existing economic evaluations of etanercept and infliximab in PsA, a new economic model was developed (the York Model). This utilised the results from the evidence synthesis and data from a range of other sources. RESULTS: Across the two trials, at 12 weeks, around 65% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 {pooled relative risk (RR) 4.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.74 to 6.42]}, demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. In addition, around 45% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an ACR 50 [pooled RR 10.84 (95% CI 4.47 to 26.28)] and around 12% achieved an ACR 70 [pooled RR 16.28 (95% CI 2.20 to 120.54)], demonstrating a good level of efficacy. The subgroup analyses conducted in one trial revealed that the effect of etanercept was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. In addition, almost 85% of patients treated with etanercept achieved a Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [pooled RR 2.60 (95% CI 1.96 to 3.45). The Psoriatic Area and Severity Index (PASI) results indicate some beneficial effect on psoriasis at 12 weeks; however, the data are sparse. The statistically significant reduction (improvement) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score with etanercept compared with placebo indicates a beneficial effect of etanercept on function. Similar results were seen at 24 weeks, except that the results for PASI 75 and PASI 50 now achieved statistical significance and data for Total Sharp Score annualised rate of progression were available; this was statistically significantly lower in etanercept-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients. Uncontrolled follow-up of patients indicates that treatment benefit may be maintained for at least 50 weeks. At 16 weeks, 65% of patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 20 [RR 6.80 (95% CI 2.89 to 16.01)], demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. This level of efficacy was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. Almost half the patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 50 [RR 49.00 (95% CI 3.06 to 785.06)] and over one-quarter achieved an ACR 70 [RR 31.00 (95% CI 1.90 to 504.86)] compared with none of the placebo group, demonstrating a good level of efficacy. In addition, 75% of patients treated with infliximab achieved a PsARC [RR 3.55 (95% CI 2.05 to 6.13)]. The beneficial treatment effect on psoriasis was also statistically significant with a mean difference in percentage change from baseline in PASI of -5 (95% CI -6.8 to -3.3), as was the percentage improvement from baseline in HAQ score with infliximab compared with placebo [mean difference 51.4 (95% CI 48.08 to 54.72)], indicating a beneficial effect of infliximab on functional status. Uncontrolled data from all measures of joint disease, psoriasis and HAQ collected up to 50 weeks of follow-up reflect those at 16 weeks. There were no radiographic assessments, so nothing can be determined about the potential or otherwise of infliximab to delay the progression of joint disease. Using the York cost-effectiveness model, infliximab was consistently dominated by etanercept because of its higher acquisition and administration costs without superior effectiveness. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of etanercept compared with palliative care ranged from 14,818 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,374 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) if it is assumed that, when patients eventually fail on biological therapy, their disability (in terms of HAQ score) deteriorates by the same amount as it improved when they initially respond to treatment (rebound equal to gain). Results for etanercept ranged from 25,443 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,441 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) per QALY gained under the assumption that, when patients fail on therapy, their disability level returns to what it would have been had they never responded (rebound equal to natural history). CONCLUSIONS: The limited data available indicated that etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. Short-term data indicated that etanercept can delay joint disease progression, but long-term data are needed. There are no controlled data as yet to indicate that infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Treatment with both etanercept and infliximab for 12 weeks demonstrated a significant degree of efficacy, with no statistically significant difference between them. For both drugs, adverse events were common with mild injection/infusion reactions being the main treatment-related effect. The York model indicated that etanercept is more cost-effective than infliximab as it has a lower cost with little difference in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept is also sensitive to assumptions made about the extent of disease progression when patients are responding to therapy. The number of years for which a patient can be safely on biologicals is uncertain so these results should be considered with caution. Further research should include long-term controlled trials to confirm benefits, review adverse events and to explore further the implications of biologic therapy.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with an inadequate response to standard treatment (including DMARD therapy). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The literature search covered a range of 13 medical databases and submissions were provided by the manufacturers of etanercept and infliximab. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of etanercept or infliximab that reported outcomes of disease activity in PsA were reviewed. RESULTS: There were two good quality double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs each for etanercept and infliximab. The results demonstrated that after initial treatment (12 weeks for etanercept and 14 or 16 weeks for infliximab) both drugs had statistically significant beneficial effects compared with placebo on ACR 20, 50 and 70, PsARC and HAQ scores. Efficacy was not dependent upon concomitant methotrexate. Results at 24 weeks indicated that the response to treatment is maintained. Effects on psoriasis were beneficial, particularly with infliximab. Uncontrolled radiographic assessment data at one year indicated a beneficial effect of both etanercept and infliximab on the progression of joint disease. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that both etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. There are limited data indicating that etanercept and infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Further long-term data are required to confirm and consolidate the evidence base for both drugs.

Systematic review of effectiveness of different treatments for childhood retinoblastoma.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Studies of participants diagnosed with childhood retinoblastoma, any interventions and all clinical outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and cohort studies with clear comparisons between treatment groups were included. Methodological quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Where possible, studies assessing common interventions were grouped together, with prospective and retrospective studies grouped separately. Emphasis was placed on prospective studies. RESULTS: Thirty-one individual studies, from 42 publications, were included in the review. Apart from one non-randomised controlled trial, only comparative studies of observational design were available for any of the treatments. Four of the included studies were prospective and the remaining 27 were retrospective. Most of the studies were of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, with few studies available on enucleation or focal treatments such as brachytherapy, photocoagulation, cryotherapy and thermotherapy. The methodological quality was generally poor, with a high risk of bias in all included studies. The main problems were in relation to how treatment was allocated and lack of consideration of potentially confounding factors, such as initial disease severity, in the study design and data analysis. The evidence base for effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is extremely limited. Owing to the considerable limitations of the evidence identified, it was not possible to make meaningful and robust conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different treatment approaches for childhood retinoblastoma. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' opinion, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is not sufficiently robust to provide clear guidance for clinical practice. Ideally, good-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different treatment options for childhood retinoblastoma are required. Research is required on all the treatments currently used for this condition. Where RCTs are not feasible, for ethical or practical reasons, only high-quality, prospective, non-randomised studies should be given consideration, owing to the generally higher risk of bias in retrospective studies. To reduce the risk of confounding due to allocation by clinical indication, studies should compare patients with similar disease severity rather than compare patients of mixed disease severities. Standardised outcomes should be agreed for use in studies assessing the effectiveness of treatment. These outcomes should encompass potential important adverse effects of treatment such as loss of visual acuity and cosmetic outcome, as well as beneficial effects.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of orlistat used for the management of obesity.

The aim of this paper is to assess the clinical effectiveness of orlistat used for the management of obesity. Nineteen electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of orlistat for weight loss or maintenance of weight loss in overweight or obese patients. Each included trial was assessed for methodological quality. Statistical pooling was performed when trials were considered to be sufficiently similar. Twenty-three trials were eligible for inclusion. Placebo-controlled trials recruiting patients with uncomplicated obesity reported statistically significant differences in favour of orlistat for weight loss and changes in obesity-related risk factors at all time points. Trials in obese patients with defined risk factors at baseline showed similar results, however, smaller effect sizes were observed in patients with type 2 diabetes. The effectiveness of orlistat relative to other anti-obesity drugs is currently unclear. When orlistat was added to simvastatin, this proved to be more effective for weight loss than either drug used individually. Orlistat use is associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo. In conclusion, orlistat is more effective than placebo in promoting weight loss, maintenance of weight loss, and improving cardiovascular risk factor profiles. Baseline parameters of patients seen in clinical practice should be taken into account when considering treatment.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acute hospital-based spinal cord injuries services: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine four key areas: (1) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal fixation surgery, (2) the consequences of immediate versus delayed referral to a spinal injuries unit (SIU), (3) the number of people with a new spinal cord injury (SCI) who are discharged from hospital without ever being transferred to an SIU, and (4) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of steroids for people with SCI. DATA SOURCES: Searches were carried out on several databases and also on the Internet. Specialist SCI and spinal injury related websites were searched, specifically the Spinal Injuries Association, the British Association of Spinal Cord Injury Specialists and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. REVIEW METHODS: Three separate search strategies were devised to find studies relating to the four key areas. Two reviewers independently screened all study citations for inclusion. The lists of all retrieved studies were scanned for additional studies. Quality of studies was assessed and data were extracted by one reviewer then checked by the second. Data from included studies were summarised within each key area. For dichotomous data, relative risks were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Pooled relative risks were calculated as appropriate. For continuous data, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and, if data were pooled, weighted mean differences were calculated. Searches were carried out to identify economic evaluations, details of these together with a critical appraisal of quality are presented in structured tables. Quality was assessed using a checklist supplemented with additional comments on the adequacy of methodology where appropriate. RESULTS: For spinal fixation versus no fixation, 68 retrospective observational studies were found that suggested some benefits of fixation surgery. Only four studies were found on fixation surgery in SIUs compared with non-SIU hospitals and no significant differences were seen. All 28 studies concerning delayed referral to a SIU were retrospective observational studies. In most, study details were poorly reported and there was doubt over the comparability of groups at baseline and on confounding factors. Times of referral and transfer were not reported separately. Evidence suggested an effect in favour of the SIU group for neurological improvement. No relevant published studies of any design were found regarding how many people with a new SCI are discharged from hospital without ever being transferred to an SIU. Two systematic reviews were found that assessed the effectiveness of steroids. No studies were identified that considered both costs and the impact on patient outcomes of a given intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was evidence to suggest some benefits of fixation surgery and also a benefit of immediate referral to SIUs compared with delayed or no referral, owing to the limitations of the data these should be interpreted with caution. Not enough data were found to assess whether surgery is more beneficial when carried out in SIUs and further research is required in this area. Well-designed prospective observational studies with appropriately matched controls are needed. High-dose methylprednisolone steroid therapy may be effective in promoting some degree of neurological recovery if given within 8 hours of injury. There is a need for more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapy for acute SCI. No published studies of any design were found to answer the question of how many people with acute SCI are discharged from hospital without ever being transferred to an SIU. Primary research involving audit of selected hospital records should be commissioned and published. The search strategy did not identify any full economic evaluations. Future research should include full economic evaluations, possibly alongside a large RCT, which fully consider the costs and consequences of implementing interventions.

Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To identify existing guidelines and develop a synthesised guideline plus accompanying checklist. In addition to provide guidance on key theoretical, methodological and practical issues and consider the implications of this research for what might be expected of future decision-analytic models. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of existing good practice guidelines was undertaken to identify and summarise guidelines currently available for assessing the quality of decision-analytic models that have been undertaken for health technology assessment. A synthesised good practice guidance and accompanying checklist was developed. Two specific methods areas in decision modelling were considered. The first method's topic is the identification of parameter estimates from published literature. Parameter searches were developed and piloted using a case-study model. The second topic relates to bias in parameter estimates; that is, how to adjust estimates of treatment effect from observational studies where there are risks of selection bias. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify those studies looking at quantification of bias in parameter estimates and the implication of this bias. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and consolidated into a single set of brief statements of good practice. From this, a checklist was developed and applied to three independent decision-analytic models. Although the checklist provided excellent guidance on some key issues for model evaluation, it was too general to pick up on the specific nuances of each model. The searches that were developed helped to identify important data for inclusion in the model. However, the quality of life searches proved to be problematic: the published search filters did not focus on those measures specific to cost-effectiveness analysis and although the strategies developed as part of this project were more successful few data were found. Of the 11 studies meeting the criteria on the effect of selection bias, five concluded that a non-randomised trial design is associated with bias and six studies found 'similar' estimates of treatment effects from observational studies or non-randomised clinical trials and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One purpose of developing the synthesised guideline and checklist was to provide a framework for critical appraisal by the various parties involved in the health technology assessment process. First, the guideline and checklist can be used by groups that are reviewing other analysts' models and, secondly, the guideline and checklist could be used by the various analysts as they develop their models (to use it as a check on how they are developing and reporting their analyses). The Expert Advisory Group (EAG) that was convened to discuss the potential role of the guidance and checklist felt that, in general, the guidance and checklist would be a useful tool, although the checklist is not meant to be used exclusively to determine a model's quality, and so should not be used as a substitute for critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The review of current guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, in other areas conflicting attributes are presented in different guidelines. In general, the checklist appears to perform well, in terms of identifying those aspects of the model that should be of particular concern to the reader. The checklist cannot, however, provide answers to the appropriateness of the model structure and structural assumptions, as these may be seen as a general problem with generic checklists and do not reflect any shortcoming with the synthesised guidance and checklist developed here. The assessment of the checklist, as well as feedback from the EAG, indicated the importance of its use in conjunction with a more general checklist or guidelines on economic evaluation. Further methods research into the following areas would be valuable: the quantification of selection bias in non-controlled studies and in controlled observational studies; the level of bias in the different non-RCT study designs; a comparison of results from RCTs with those from other non-randomised studies; assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways to adjust for bias in a decision model; and how to prioritise searching for parameter estimates.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine (Xeloda) for locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral capecitabine for locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer in relation to its licensed indications. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-three electronic databases and other databases of ongoing research and Internet resources, bibliographies of retrieved articles and industry submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened and assessed all titles and/or abstracts including economic evaluations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that investigated capecitabine monotherapy, in patients pretreated with an anthracycline-containing regimen or a taxane, or capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, in patients pretreated with an anthracycline-containing regimen, were included. The economic evaluation was based on data reported in the manufacturer's submission. RESULTS: For capecitabine monotherapy, 12 uncontrolled observational studies were identified. The methodological quality of the studies was low. Capecitabine demonstrated antitumour activity, but was associated with a particular risk of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea. Economic evaluation was hampered by the poor quality of the published studies, but compared indirectly with vinorelbine, capecitabine was associated with lower costs and improved patient outcomes. For capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, one RCT was identified. Combination therapy was superior to single-agent docetaxel in terms of survival, time to disease progression and overall response. Adverse events occurred more frequently with combination therapy. The economic evaluation demonstrated an overall improved QALY score for combination therapy with a slight reduction in costs. CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions could be drawn regarding the therapeutic benefit of capecitabine monotherapy; RCTs are required. Capecitabine appeared cost-effective compared with vinorelbine, but serious doubts remain; the poor quality of the trials may invalidate this conclusion. Based on limited evidence, combination therapy was more effective than single-agent docetaxel and likely to be cost-effective, but was associated with higher incidences of hand-foot syndrome, nausea, diarrhoea and stomatitis.

A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases; industry submissions made to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised trials and economic evaluations that evaluated the effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine or valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder were selected for inclusion. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a Microsoft Access database and checked for quality and accuracy by a second. The quality of the cost-effectiveness studies was assessed using a checklist updated from that developed by Drummond and colleagues. Relative risk and mean difference data were presented as Forest plots but only pooled where this made sense clinically and statistically. Studies were grouped by drug and, within each drug, by comparator used. Chi-squared tests of heterogeneity were performed for the outcomes if pooling was indicated. A probabilistic model was developed to estimate costs from the perspective of the NHS, and health outcomes in terms of response rate, based on an improvement of at least 50% in a patient's baseline manic symptoms derived from an interview-based mania assessment scale. The model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the alternative drugs when used as part of treatment for the acute manic episode only. RESULTS: Eighteen randomised trials met the inclusion criteria. Aspects of three of the quetiapine studies were commercial-in-confidence. The quality of the included trials was limited and overall, key methodological criteria were not met in most trials. Quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior to placebo in reducing manic symptoms, but may cause side-effects. There appears to be little difference between these treatments and lithium in terms of effectiveness, but quetiapine is associated with somnolence and weight gain, whereas lithium is associated with tremor. Olanzapine as adjunct therapy to mood stabilisers may be more effective than placebo in reducing mania and improving global health, but it is associated with more dry mouth, somnolence, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor and speech disorder. There was little difference between these treatments and haloperidol in reducing mania, but haloperidol was associated with more extrapyramidal side-effects and negative implications for health-related quality of life. Intramuscular olanzapine and lorazepam were equally effective and safe in one very short (24 hour) trial. Valproate semisodium and carbamazepine were equally effective and safe in one small trial in children. Olanzapine may be more effective than valproate semisodium in reducing mania, but was associated with more dry mouth, increased appetite, oedema, somnolence, speech disorder, Parkinson-like symptoms and weight gain. Valproate semisodium was associated with more nausea than olanzapine. The results from the base-case analysis demonstrate that choice of optimal strategy is dependent on the maximum that the health service is prepared to pay per additional responder. For a figure of less than 7179 British pounds per additional responder, haloperidol is the optimal decision; for a spend in excess of this, it would be olanzapine. Under the most favourable scenario in relation to the costs of responders and non-responders beyond the 3-week period considered in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olanzapine is reduced to 1236 British pounds. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with placebo, quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior in reducing manic symptoms, but all drugs are associated with adverse events. In comparison with lithium, no significant differences were found between the three drugs in terms of effectiveness, and all were associated with adverse events. Several limitations of the cost-effectiveness analysis exist, which inevitably means that the results should be treated with some caution. There remains a need for well-conducted, randomised, double-blind head-to-head comparisons of drugs used in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder and their cost-effectiveness. Participant demographic, diagnostic characteristics, the treatment of mania in children, the use of adjunctive therapy and long-term safety issues in the elderly population, and acute and long-term treatment are also subjects for further study.

General health status measures for people with cognitive impairment: learning disability and acquired brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is a wide range of health status measures that aim to assess general health status in people with cognitive impairment. However, the validity and/or applicability to this patient group are largely unknown. This has implications for the assessment of treatment outcomes and rehabilitation, for prognostic purposes, for planning services, and for determining the benefits and adverse effects of health technologies targeted at these patient groups. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the general health status measures that have been validated in patients with cognitive impairment. (2) To assess the extent to which these measures have been validated. (3) To draw out the implications of the findings for the use of existing measures and for future primary research in this area. METHODS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that assessed general health status in people with cognitive impairment due to acquired brain injury (traumatic brain injury, cerebro-vascular accident or multiple sclerosis (MS)) or learning disability (LD) were included in the review. Studies that used general health status instruments measuring only one general health dimension, and studies that only featured participants with cognitive impairment due to dementia were excluded. METHODS. SEARCH STRATEGY: A wide range of relevant databases were searched for studies on cognitive impairment, general health status measures, and validation of health status measures. A handsearch of general health status bibliographies was also conducted. Data were collected on the general health status measure used, the population characteristics, aims of the study, validity details, and conclusions. RESULTS: The review includes data from 71 studies, reported in 83 separate publications. In total 34 different general health status measures were described in the 83 publications, with the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) the most frequently used measures (20 and 19 studies, respectively). These studies included a total of 98 instrument validations, 52 of which definitely or probably included people with cognitive impairment. Six measures were extensively validated (quality scores ranged from 0.25 to 0.5, on a scale from 0 to 1) in studies in which more than 50% of the respondents were people with cognitive impairment. A further three measures were also validated in studies in which more than 50% of the respondents were people with cognitive impairment, but their level of validation was more limited (quality scores ranged from 0.1 to 0.2). Five measures were validated in studies in which 20-50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired, which may limit their relevance to participants with cognitive impairment (quality scores ranged from 0.1 to 0.6). The SF-36 was also validated in two studies in which 20-50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired and the quality score was 0.3. Finally, nine of the measures were only validated in studies in which less than 20% of the respondents were cognitively impaired. For these measures it was unclear whether the findings applied to people with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Very few measures have been validated specifically for cognitively impaired respondents. Studies where at least 50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired generally showed poorer validity results compared with studies with fewer cognitively impaired persons, indicating that general health status measures designed for the general population are not automatically suitable for people with cognitive impairment. The few measures that were specifically developed for people with cognitive impairment also reported poor validity results. Therefore, there are no validated instruments available for use in cognitively impaired respondents; existing measures, specifically designed for use in these populations, should be used with caution. The most promising measure is the MS-Quality of Life Interview (MS-QLI) for MS patients. The MS-QLI was thoroughly validated in 300 MS patients and the results were good, except for the 'social function' subscale. However, only 20-50% of the respondents in this study had cognitive impairment. Most information on the validity of general health status measures was found in studies among people with LD. For these patients, six measures were found that have been validated in a populations where more than 50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired LD patients. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Existing general health status measures should be used with caution in individuals with cognitive impairments. (2) There is no evidence to indicate the most suitable general health status measure for use in economic evaluations of cognitive impairment. (3) There is little evidence to support the validity of proxy assessments in cognitively impaired populations. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in developed societies is increasing. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of co-morbidity, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Following the withdrawal of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, interest has focused on a novel anti-obesity drug orlistat. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity. METHODS - SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2000. Additionally, Internet searches were carried out, bibliographies of retrieved articles were examined and submissions were received from the manufacturer of orlistat. METHODS - INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of orlistat used for weight loss or maintenance of weight loss in overweight or obese patients were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome measures were changes in body weight, fat content or fat distribution. Secondary outcomes were changes in obesity-related risk-factor profiles, such as lipid levels, indicators of glycaemic control and blood pressure. Studies recruiting people with eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa were excluded. METHODS - PROCESS OF STUDY SELECTION: Assessment of titles and abstracts was performed independently by two reviewers. If either reviewer considered a reference to be relevant, the full paper was retrieved. Full papers were assessed against the review selection criteria by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS - DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one reviewer into structured summary tables and checked by a second reviewer. Any disagreements about data were resolved by discussion. METHODS - QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Each included trial was assessed against a comprehensive checklist for methodological quality. Quality assessment was performed independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. METHODS - METHODS OF ANALYSIS/SYNTHESIS: This report is a narrative summary, with results grouped according to study endpoint. Statistical pooling was undertaken in groups of trials that were considered to be sufficiently similar. METHODS - ESTIMATION OF QUALITY OF LIFE, COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND/OR COST PER QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEAR: Relevant economic evaluations were identified from the search strategy described above. Assessment of methodological quality was undertaken using principles outlined in published guidelines. METHODS - COMPANY SUBMISSIONS: Data from company submissions were subject to the same selection and appraisal processes as other studies considered for inclusion in the review, except that only RCTs with a duration of at least 1 year were selected. RESULTS - RESULTS OF THE SEARCH STRATEGY: Fourteen RCTs (including three company submissions) and two economic evaluations (including one company submission) were included in the review. RESULTS - RESULTS OF THE QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Methodological quality of trials was moderate to good. The main problems were lack of detail on methods used to produce true randomisation, small sample sizes in some cases and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis. It is likely that maintenance of blinding was difficult due to adverse effects associated with the study medication. RESULTS - EVIDENCE OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS: Most of the trials showed greater weight loss and better weight maintenance with orlistat compared to placebo at all endpoints (statistically significant differences for both outcomes). Orlistat 120 mg three times daily was the optimum regimen in terms of weight loss. Most trials showed significant improvement in at least some lipid concentration parameters, and, in three RCTs, orlistat produced statistically significant reductions in blood pressure relative to placebo. In obese patients with type 2 diabetes, orlistat resulted in a significantly greater weight loss at 1 year compared with placebo, and some parameters of glycaemic control and lipid concentration also showed significantly greater improvements compared with placebo. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently higher in orlistat groups compared with placebo, and orlistat use was associated with lower serum levels of fat-soluble vitamins. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year for orlistat was 45,881 UK pounds. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Although many trials have demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups in terms of weight loss in favour of orlistat versus placebo, the differences may not always be of clinical significance. The clinical significance of between-group differences for secondary outcomes may also be debatable. Possible adverse effects should be taken into account when prescribing orlistat, particularly gastrointestinal effects. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative antiplatelet agents, clopidogrel and modified-release (MR)-dipyridamole, relative to prophylactic doses of aspirin for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A total of 2906 titles and abstracts were rigorously screened and 441 studies were assessed in detail. Two RCTs were identified. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, eight reviews were identified. The results were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. No additional clinical effectiveness data were presented in either of two company submissions. All economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. Following this analysis, if the existing models (company or published) were not sufficient, a de novo model or modified versions of the models were developed. RESULTS: In the CAPRIE trial the point estimate for the primary outcome, i.e. ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or vascular death, favoured clopidogrel over aspirin, but the boundaries of the confidence intervals raise the possibility that clopidogrel is not more beneficial than aspirin. In terms of the secondary outcomes reported, there was a non-significant trend in favour of clopidogrel over aspirin but the boundaries of the confidence intervals on the relative risks all crossed unity. There was no difference in the number of patients ever reporting any bleeding disorder in the clopidogrel group compared with the aspirin group. The incidences of rash and diarrhoea were statistically significantly higher in the clopidogrel group than the aspirin group. Patients in the aspirin group had a higher incidence of indigestion/nausea/vomiting than patients in the clopidogrel group. Haematological adverse events were rare in both the clopidogrel and aspirin groups. No cases of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura were reported in either group. Treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone did not significantly reduce the risk of any of the primary outcomes reported in ESPS-2 compared with treatment with aspirin. ASA-MR-dipyridamole was significantly more effective than aspirin alone in patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) at reducing the outcome of stroke and marginally more effective at reducing stroke and/or death. Treatment with ASA-MR-dipyridamole did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of death compared to treatment with aspirin. The number of strokes was statistically significantly reduced in the ASA-MR-dipyridamole group compared with the MR-dipyridamole group. In terms of the other primary outcomes, stroke and/or death and death, the results favoured treatment with ASA-MR-dipyridamole but the findings were not statistically significant. There was no difference in the number of bleeding complications between the ASA-MR-dipyridamole and aspirin groups. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly lower in the MR-dipyridamole treatment group. More patients in the MR-dipyridamole treatment groups experienced headaches compared to patients receiving treatment with aspirin alone. The York model assessed the cost-effectiveness of differing combinations of treatment strategies in four patient subgroups, under a number of different scenarios. The results of the model were sensitive to the assumptions made in the alternative scenarios, in particular the impact of therapy on non-vascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel was marginally more effective than aspirin at reducing the risk of ischaemic stroke, MI or vascular death in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, however, it did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of vascular death or death from any cause compared with aspirin. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of bleeding complications experienced in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups. MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin was superior to aspirin alone at reducing the risk of stroke and marginally more effective at reducing the risk of stroke and/or death. Compared with treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone, MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin significantly reduced the risk of stroke. Treatment with MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of death compared with aspirin. Compared with treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone, bleeding complications were statistically significantly higher in patients treated with aspirin and MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin. Due to the assumptions that have to be made, no conclusions could be drawn about the relative effectiveness of MR-dipyridamole, alone or in combination with aspirin, and clopidogrel from the adjusted indirect comparison. The following would apply for a cost of up to GBP20,000-40,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year. For the stroke and TIA subgroups, ASA-MR-dipyridamole would be the most cost-effective therapy given a 2-year treatment duration as long as all patients were not left disabled by their initial (qualifying) stroke. For a lifetime treatment duration, ASA-MR-dipyridamole would be considered more cost-effective than aspirin as long as treatment effects on non-vascular deaths are not considered and all patients were not left disabled by their initial stroke. In patients left disabled by their initial stroke, aspirin is the most cost-effective therapy. Clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole alone would not be considered cost-effective under any scenario. For the MI and peripheral arterial disease subgroups, clopidogrel would be considered cost-effective for a treatment duration of 2 years. For a lifetime treatment duration, clopidogrel would be considered more cost-effective than aspirin as long as treatment effects on non-vascular deaths are not considered. It is suggested that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin should be evaluated for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. Also randomised, direct comparisons of clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin are required to inform the treatment of patients with a history of stroke and TIA, plus trials that compare treatment with clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole for the secondary prevention of vascular events in patients who demonstrate a genuine intolerance to aspirin.

Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel used in combination with standard therapy including aspirin, compared with standard therapy alone for the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were selected using rigorous criteria. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to criteria based on NHS CRD Report No. 4, and the quality of systematic reviews was assessed according to the guidelines for the Database of Reviews of Effect (DARE) criteria. The quality of economic evaluations was assessed according to a specifically tailored checklist. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in combination with standard therapy compared with standard therapy alone were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of the included studies. In the economic evaluations, a cost-effectiveness model was constructed using the best available evidence to determine cost-effectiveness in a UK setting. RESULTS: One RCT (the CURE trial) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of high quality and showed that clopidogrel in addition to aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo plus aspirin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS for the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke over the 9-month treatment period. However, clopidogrel was associated with a significantly higher number of episodes of both major and minor bleeding. The results from the five systematic reviews that assessed the adverse events associated with long-term aspirin use showed that aspirin was associated with a significantly higher incidence of haemorrhagic stroke, extracranial haemorrhage and gastrointestinal haemorrhage compared with placebo. Of the cost-effectiveness evidence reviewed, only the manufacturer's submission was considered relevant from the perspective of the NHS. The review of this evidence highlighted potential limitations within the submission in its use of data and in the model structure used. These limitations led to the development of a new model with the aim of providing a more reliable estimate of the cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. This model indicated that clopidogrel appears cost-effective compared with standard care alone in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS as long as the NHS is willing to pay GBP6078 per quality of life year (QALY). The results were most sensitive to the inclusion of additional strategies that assessed alternative treatment durations with clopidogrel. Although treatment with clopidogrel for 12 months remained cost-effective for the overall cohort, provisional findings indicate that the shorter treatment durations may be more cost-effective in patients at low risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the CURE trial indicate that clopidogrel in combination with aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo combined with aspirin in a wide range of patients with ACS. This benefit was largely related to a reduction in Q-wave myocardial infarction. There was no statistically significant benefit in relation to mortality. The trial data suggested that a substantial part of the benefit derived from clopidogrel is achieved by 3 months, with a further small benefit over the remaining 9 months of chronic treatment. The results from the base-case model suggest that treatment with clopidogrel as an adjunct to standard therapy (including aspirin) for 12 months, compared with standard therapy alone, is cost-effective in non-ST elevation ACS patients as long as the health service is willing to pay GBP6078 per additional QALY. However, although treatment with clopidogrel for 12 months remained cost-effective for the overall cohort, provisional findings indicate that the shorter treatment durations may be more cost-effective in patients at low risk. To estimate the exact length of time that clopidogrel in addition to standard therapy should be prescribed for patients with non-ST-segment ACS would require a prospective trial that randomised patients to various durations of therapy. This would accurately assess whether a 'rebound' phenomenon occurs in patients if clopidogrel were stopped after 3 months of treatment.

Perceptions about perceived functional disabilities and pain of people with rheumatoid arthritis: differences between patients and their spouses and correlates with well-being.

OBJECTIVE: In this study we examined the differences in perceptions of the patient's health status between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and their spouses, and correlates of these differences with patients' and spouses' well-being. METHODS: A sample of 188 couples with one member receiving treatment for RA were selected from the rheumatology clinics in Twente, The Netherlands. The mean age of both RA patients and spouses was 56 years. Respondents completed questionnaires, including estimations of both patients and spouses on the patient's functional disabilities and pain, and scales on affect and marital commitment for patients and spouses. RESULTS: Differences in estimations of patients and spouses were considerable. Both over- and underestimations of the patient's functional disabilities by the spouse were associated with the patient's poorer mental health status. Overestimations of the patient's functional disabilities were associated with poorer mental health among spouses. CONCLUSION: It is essential that any support intended by the spouse is in accordance with the patient's needs. If the patient's condition is misperceived by the spouse, this can lead to ineffective and inappropriate support being given.

Coordinated individual education with an arthritis passport for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a program for individual education in combination with the use of an arthritis passport. METHODS: We studied 3 groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The first experimental group received educational materials and followed the program under the guidance of their regular providers of health care whose activities were coordinated through arthritis passports. The second experimental group only received education materials; the control group received only usual care. RESULTS: There were no effects on self-efficacy expectations, knowledge, health status, or behavior in either experimental group. Opinions of general practitioners, physiotherapists, and visiting nurses concerning the arthritis passport were very positive, but rheumatologists' opinions were not. Opinions on coordination of care were more positive among the physiotherapists of the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: Individual education for patients with rheumatoid arthritis by health care providers during routine consultations, as implemented in this program, had no effect on self-efficacy expectations, knowledge, health status, or health behavior. Likewise, the distribution of educational materials by itself without the involvement of health care providers had no effect. The use of the arthritis passport improved coordination of care, especially for physiotherapists.

Patient education for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Because of the unpredictability people with arthritis face on a daily basis, patient education programmes have become an effective complement to traditional medical treatment giving people with arthritis the strategies and the tools necessary to make daily decisions to cope with the disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions on health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A selection of review articles (see references) were examined to identify further relevant publications. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating patient education interventions that included an instructional component and a non-intervention control group; pre- and post-test results available separately for RA, either in the publication or from the studies' authors; and study results presented in full, end-of-study report. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one studies with relevant data were included. We found significant effects of patient education at first follow-up for scores on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment, psychological status, and depression. A trend favouring patient education was found for scores on pain. Physician global assessment was not assessed in any of the included studies. The dimensions of anxiety and disease activity showed no significant effects. At final follow up no significant effects of patient education were found, although there was a trend favouring patient education for scores on disability. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Patient education as provided in the studies reviewed here had small short-term effects on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment, psychological status and depression. There was no evidence of long-term benefits in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

Patient education for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Because of the unpredictability people with arthritis face on a daily basis, patient education programmes have become an effective complement to traditional medical treatment giving people with arthritis the strategies and the tools necessary to make daily decisions to cope with the disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions on health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A selection of review articles (see references) were examined to identify further relevant publications. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating patient education interventions that included an instructional component and a non-intervention control group; pre- and post-test results available separately for RA, either in the publication or from the studies' authors; and study results presented in full, end-of-study report. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with relevant data were included. We found significant effects of patient education at first follow-up for scores on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment and psychological status. Physician global assessment was not assessed in any of the included studies. The two separate dimensions of psychological status: anxiety and depression showed no significant effects, nor did the dimensions of pain and disease activity. At final follow up no significant effects of patient education were found. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Patient education as provided in the studies reviewed here had moderate short-term effects on patient global assessment, and small short-term effects on disability, joint counts and psychological status. There were no long-term benefits.

Patient education for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Because of the unpredictability people with arthritis face on a daily basis, patient education programmes have become an effective complement to traditional medical treatment giving people with arthritis the strategies and the tools necessary to make daily decisions to cope with the disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions on health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A selection of review articles (see references) were examined to identify further relevant publications. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating patient education interventions that included an instructional component and a non-intervention control group; pre- and post-test results available separately for RA, either in the publication or from the studies' authors; and study results presented in full, end-of-study report. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with relevant data were included. We found significant effects of patient education at first follow-up for scores on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment and psychological status. Physician global assessment was not assessed in any of the included studies. The two separate dimensions of psychological status: anxiety and depression showed no significant effects, nor did the dimensions of pain and disease activity. At final follow up no significant effects of patient education were found. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Patient education as provided in the studies reviewed here had moderate short-term effects on patient global assessment, and small short-term effects on disability, joint counts and psychological status. There were no long-term benefits.