What is the impact of long-term COVID-19 on workers in healthcare settings? A rapid systematic review of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a devastating, long-term, debilitating illness which disproportionately affects healthcare workers, due to the nature of their work. There is currently limited evidence specific to healthcare workers about the experience of living with Long COVID, or its prevalence, pattern of recovery or impact on healthcare. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the effects of Long COVID among healthcare workers and its impact on health status, working lives, personal circumstances, and use of health service resources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic rapid review according to current methodological standards and reported it in adherence to the PRISMA 2020 and ENTREQ statements. RESULTS: We searched relevant electronic databases and identified 3770 articles of which two studies providing qualitative evidence and 28 survey studies providing quantitative evidence were eligible. Thematic analysis of the two qualitative studies identified five themes: uncertainty about symptoms, difficulty accessing services, importance of being listened to and supported, patient versus professional identity and suggestions to improve communication and services for people with Long COVID. Common long-term symptoms in the survey studies included fatigue, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, breathlessness, dyspnoea, difficulty concentrating, depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers struggled with their dual identity (patient/doctor) and felt dismissed or not taken seriously by their doctors. Our findings are in line with those in the literature showing that there are barriers to healthcare professionals accessing healthcare and highlighting the challenges of receiving care due to their professional role. A more representative approach in Long COVID research is needed to reflect the diverse nature of healthcare staff and their occupations. This rapid review was conducted using robust methods with the codicil that the pace of research into Long COVID may mean relevant evidence was not identified.

Cost-effectiveness of testosterone treatment utilising individual patient data from randomised controlled trials in men with low testosterone levels.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone is safe and highly effective in men with organic hypogonadism, but worldwide testosterone prescribing has recently shifted towards middle-aged and older men, mostly with low testosterone related to age, diabetes and obesity, for whom there is less established evidence of clinical safety and benefit. The value of testosterone treatment in middle-aged and older men with low testosterone is yet to be determined. We therefore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testosterone treatment in such men with low testosterone compared with no treatment. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis comparing testosterone with no treatment was conducted following best practices in decision modelling. A cohort Markov model incorporating relevant care pathways for individuals with hypogonadism was developed for a 10-year-time horizon. Clinical outcomes were obtained from an individual patient meta-analysis of placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised studies. Three starting age categories were defined: 40, 60 and 75 years. Cost utility (quality-adjusted life years) accrued and costs of testosterone treatment, monitoring and cardiovascular complications were compared to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for selected scenarios. RESULTS: Ten-year excess treatment costs for testosterone compared with non-treatment ranged between £2306 and £3269 per patient. Quality-adjusted life years results depended on the instruments used to measure health utilities. Using Beck depression index-derived quality-adjusted life years data, testosterone was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <£20,000) for men aged <75 years, regardless of morbidity and mortality sensitivity analyses. Testosterone was not cost-effective in men aged >75 years in models assuming increased morbidity and/or mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH: Our data suggest that testosterone is cost-effective in men <75 years when Beck depression index-derived quality-adjusted life years data are considered; cost-effectiveness in men >75 years is dependent on cardiovascular safety. However, more robust and longer-term cost-utility data are needed to verify our conclusion.

Symptomatic benefits of testosterone treatment in patient subgroups: a systematic review, individual participant data meta-analysis, and aggregate data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone replacement therapy is known to improve sexual function in men younger than 40 years with pathological hypogonadism. However, the extent to which testosterone alleviates sexual dysfunction in older men and men with obesity is unclear, despite the fact that testosterone is being increasingly prescribed to these patient populations. We aimed to evaluate whether subgroups of men with low testosterone derive any symptomatic benefit from testosterone treatment. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate characteristics associated with symptomatic benefit of testosterone treatment versus placebo in men aged 18 years and older with a baseline serum total testosterone concentration of less than 12 nmol/L. We searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries for reports published in English between Jan 1, 1992, and Aug 27, 2018. Anonymised individual participant data were requested from the investigators of all identified trials. Primary (cardiovascular) outcomes from this analysis have been published previously. In this report, we present the secondary outcomes of sexual function, quality of life, and psychological outcomes at 12 months. We did a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis with a random-effects linear regression model, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating individual participant data with aggregated data from studies that did not provide individual participant data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. FINDINGS: 9871 citations were identified through database searches. After exclusion of duplicates and publications not meeting inclusion criteria, 225 full texts were assessed for inclusion, of which 109 publications reporting 35 primary studies (with a total 5601 participants) were included. Of these, 17 trials provided individual participant data (3431 participants; median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 3281 [97%] of 3380 aged ≥40 years) Compared with placebo, testosterone treatment increased 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) total score (mean difference 5·52 [95% CI 3·95-7·10]; τ2=1·17; n=1412) and IIEF-15 erectile function subscore (2·14 [1·40-2·89]; τ2=0·64; n=1436), reaching the minimal clinically important difference for mild erectile dysfunction. These effects were not found to be dependent on participant age, obesity, presence of diabetes, or baseline serum total testosterone. However, absolute IIEF-15 scores reached during testosterone treatment were subject to thresholds in patient age and baseline serum total testosterone. Testosterone significantly improved Aging Males' Symptoms score, and some 12-item or 36-item Short Form Survey quality of life subscores compared with placebo, but it did not significantly improve psychological symptoms (measured by Beck Depression Inventory). INTERPRETATION: In men aged 40 years or older with baseline serum testosterone of less than 12 nmol/L, short-to-medium-term testosterone treatment could provide clinically meaningful treatment for mild erectile dysfunction, irrespective of patient age, obesity, or degree of low testosterone. However, due to more severe baseline symptoms, the absolute level of sexual function reached during testosterone treatment might be lower in older men and men with obesity. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in men during testosterone treatment: an individual patient and aggregate data meta-analysis.

Background: Testosterone is the standard treatment for male hypogonadism, but there is uncertainty about its cardiovascular safety due to inconsistent findings. We aimed to provide the most extensive individual participant dataset (IPD) of testosterone trials available, to analyse subtypes of all cardiovascular events observed during treatment, and to investigate the effect of incorporating data from trials that did not provide IPD. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including IPD. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects for literature from 1992 onwards (date of search, Aug 27, 2018). The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) men aged 18 years and older with a screening testosterone concentration of 12 nmol/L (350 ng/dL) or less; (2) the intervention of interest was treatment with any testosterone formulation, dose frequency, and route of administration, for a minimum duration of 3 months; (3) a comparator of placebo treatment; and (4) studies assessing the pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes of interest. Details of study design, interventions, participants, and outcome measures were extracted from published articles and anonymised IPD was requested from investigators of all identified trials. Primary outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events at any time during follow-up. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We did a one-stage meta-analysis using IPD, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating IPD with data from studies not providing IPD. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. Findings: 9871 citations were identified through database searches and after exclusion of duplicates and of irrelevant citations, 225 study reports were retrieved for full-text screening. 116 studies were subsequently excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria in terms of study design and characteristics of intervention, and 35 primary studies (5601 participants, mean age 65 years, [SD 11]) reported in 109 peer-reviewed publications were deemed suitable for inclusion. Of these, 17 studies (49%) provided IPD (3431 participants, mean duration 9·5 months) from nine different countries while 18 did not provide IPD data. Risk of bias was judged to be low in most IPD studies (71%). Fewer deaths occurred with testosterone treatment (six [0·4%] of 1621) than placebo (12 [0·8%] of 1537) without significant differences between groups (odds ratio [OR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·17-1·24]; p=0·13). Cardiovascular risk was similar during testosterone treatment (120 [7·5%] of 1601 events) and placebo treatment (110 [7·2%] of 1519 events; OR 1·07 [95% CI 0·81-1·42]; p=0·62). Frequently occurring cardiovascular events included arrhythmia (52 of 166 vs 47 of 176), coronary heart disease (33 of 166 vs 33 of 176), heart failure (22 of 166 vs 28 of 176), and myocardial infarction (10 of 166 vs 16 of 176). Overall, patient age (interaction 0·97 [99% CI 0·92-1·03]; p=0·17), baseline testosterone (interaction 0·97 [0·82-1·15]; p=0·69), smoking status (interaction 1·68 [0·41-6·88]; p=0.35), or diabetes status (interaction 2·08 [0·89-4·82; p=0·025) were not associated with cardiovascular risk. Interpretation: We found no evidence that testosterone increased short-term to medium-term cardiovascular risks in men with hypogonadism, but there is a paucity of data evaluating its long-term safety. Long-term data are needed to fully evaluate the safety of testosterone. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the extent to which current evidence from long-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of weight management is generalisable and applicable to underserved adult groups with obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2). METHODS: Descriptive analysis of 131 RCTs, published after 1990-May 2017 with ≥1 year of follow-up, included in a systematic review of long-term weight management interventions for adults with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 (the REBALANCE Project). Studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SCI, CENTRAL and from hand searching. Reporting of trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, trial recruitment strategies, baseline characteristics and outcomes were analysed using a predefined list of characteristics informed by the PROGRESS (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital)-Plus framework and the UK Equality Act 2010. RESULTS: Few (6.1%) trials reported adapting recruitment to appeal to underserved groups. 10.0% reported culturally adapting their trial materials. Only 6.1% of trials gave any justification for their exclusion criteria, yet over half excluded participation for age or mental health reasons. Just over half (58%) of the trials reported participants' race or ethnicity, and one-fifth reported socioeconomic status. Where outcomes were reported for underserved groups, the most common analysis was by sex (47.3%), followed by race or ethnicity (16.8%). 3.1% of trials reported outcomes according to socioeconomic status. DISCUSSION: Although we were limited by poor trial reporting, our results indicate inadequate representation of people most at risk of obesity. Guidance for considering underserved groups may improve the appropriateness of research and inform greater engagement with health and social care services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number: 15/09/04). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016040190.

Pre-hospital and emergency department treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in adults: an evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Convulsive status epilepticus is defined as ≥ 5 minutes of either continuous seizure activity or repetitive seizures without regaining consciousness. It is regarded as an emergency condition that requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Rapid pre-hospital first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus is currently benzodiazepines, administered either by trained caregivers in the community (e.g. buccal midazolam, rectal diazepam) or by trained health professionals via intramuscular or intravenous routes (e.g. midazolam, lorazepam). There is a lack of clarity about the optimal treatment for convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for adults with convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo®, CINAHL, CENTRAL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Research Papers in Economics, and the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database, with no restrictions on publication date or language of publication. Final searches were carried out on 21 July 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing adults with convulsive status epilepticus who received treatment before or on arrival at the emergency department. Eligible treatments were any antiepileptic drugs offered as first-line treatments, regardless of their route of administration. Primary outcomes were seizure cessation, seizure recurrence and adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened all citations identified by the search strategy, retrieved full-text articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Results were described narratively. RESULTS: Four trials (1345 randomised participants, of whom 1234 were adults) assessed the intravenous or intramuscular use of benzodiazepines or other antiepileptic drugs for the pre-hospital treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in adults. Three trials at a low risk of bias showed that benzodiazepines were effective in stopping seizures. In particular, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. The addition of levetiracetam to clonazepam did not show clear advantages over clonazepam alone. One trial at a high risk of bias showed that phenobarbital plus optional phenytoin was more effective in terminating seizures than diazepam plus phenytoin. The median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 1.6 minutes to 15 minutes. The proportion of people with recurrence of seizures ranged from 10.4% to 19.1% in two trials reporting this outcome. Across trials, the rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments were generally low (from 6.4% to 10.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 2% to 7.6% in active treatment groups and from 6.2% to 15.5% in control groups. Only one study based on retrospective observational data met the criteria for economic evaluation; therefore, it was not possible to draw any robust conclusions on cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: The limited number of identified trials and their differences in terms of treatment comparisons and outcomes hindered any meaningful pooling of data. None of the included trials was conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam. The review of economic evaluations was hampered by lack of suitable data. CONCLUSIONS: Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics are more effective than a placebo in the treatments of adults with convulsive status epilepticus, and intramuscular midazolam is non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Large well-designed clinical trials are needed to establish which benzodiazepines are more effective and preferable in the pre-hospital setting. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020201953. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Epilepsy is a common condition that results from abnormal electrical activity in the brain and causes seizures (stiffening and uncontrolled jerking ­ known as a 'fit'). The most severe form of epilepsy is called 'convulsive status epilepticus', which involves continuous seizure activity for 5 minutes or more, or repetitive seizures without recovery of consciousness. Convulsive status epilepticus can be very dangerous and requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and prevent complications. Although several drugs are available for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in the community or in the emergency department, it is unclear which one is most effective in stopping seizures. We brought together results from all available clinical studies that looked at the use of drugs to treat adults with convulsive status epilepticus either before arriving at hospital or on arrival at the emergency department. In the literature, we found four studies (1234 adults) assessing drugs delivered by paramedics through an injection into a vein or into muscle. In general, the drugs used by paramedics (benzodiazepines) were effective in stopping seizures, but we were unable to identify any particular drug or way of administering it as being more successful than others. Future research is needed to establish which drugs are most effective and preferable. It is also important to improve adherence to clinical guidelines with regard to the use of these drugs. For the pre-hospital treatment of convulsive status epilepticus, little evidence was available to decide which drug treatment is the best in terms of value for money. Future studies could assess the (1) impact of treatments on costs and outcomes over the whole course of a seizure episode (2) long-term impact of different treatments on patients' quality of life and (3) health and social care needs.

Identifying the outcomes important to men with hypogonadism: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Men with male hypogonadism (MH) experience sexual dysfunction, which improves with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). However, randomised controlled trials provide little consensus on functional and behavioural symptoms in hypogonadal men; these are often better captured by qualitative information from individual patient experience. METHODS: We systematically searched major electronic databases to identify qualitative data from men with hypogonadism, with or without TRT. Two independent authors performed the selection, extraction, and thematic analysis of data. Quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research tools. RESULTS: We analysed data from five studies published in nine reports that assessed a total of 284 participants. Published data were only available within North America, with no ethnic minority or other underserved groups included. In addition to sexual dysfunction, men with MH experienced adverse changes in physical strength, perceptions of masculinity, cognitive function, and quality of life. The experience of MH appeared dependent on the source(s) of educational material. DISCUSSION: We propose a patient-centred approach to clinician interactions rather than focusing on discreet MH symptoms. Current evidence about the experience of MH is limited to North America and predominantly white ethnicity, which may not be broadly applicable to other geographic regions. Broadening our understanding of the MH experience may improve the targeting of information to patients. In addition, a multidisciplinary approach may better address symptoms neither attributable to MH nor alleviated by TRT.

Management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults: a systematic review of current randomised evidence.

BACKGROUND: Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for controlling seizures in adults with convulsive status epilepticus before, or at, arrival at hospital. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiepileptic drugs offered to adults as first-line treatments. Major electronic databases were searched. RESULTS: Four RCTs (1234 adults) were included. None were conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal or intranasal midazolam. Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics were more effective than placebo and, notably, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Overall, median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 2 to 15 min. Rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments ranged from 6.4 to 10.6%. Mortality ranged from 2 to 7.6% in active treatment groups and 6.2 to 15.5% in control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous and intramuscular benzodiazepines are safe and effective in this clinical context. Further research is needed to establish the most clinically and cost-effective first-line treatment and preferable mode of administration. Head-to-head trials comparing buccal versus intranasal midazolam versus rectal diazepam would provide useful information to inform the management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults, especially when intravenous or intramuscular access is not feasible. Approaches to improve adherence to clinical guidelines on the use of currently available benzodiazepines for the first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus should also be considered.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important. OBJECTIVES: To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies. RESULTS: The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden: a qualitative systematic review.

Background Despite common use, anticholinergic medications have been associated with serious health risks. Interventions to reduce their use are being developed and there is a need to understand their implementation into clinical care. Aim of review This systematic review aims to identify and analyse qualitative research studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden. Methods Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO) and PsycINFO (OVID) were searched using comprehensive search terms. Peer reviewed studies published in English presenting qualitative research in relation to the barriers and facilitators of deprescribing anticholinergic medications, involving patients, carers or health professionals were eligible. Normalization Process Theory was used to explore and explain the data. Results Of 1764 identified studies, two were eligible and both involved healthcare professionals (23 general practitioners, 13 specialist clinicians and 12 pharmacists). No studies were identified that involved patients or carers. Barriers to collaborative working often resulted in poor motivation to reduce anticholinergic use. Low confidence, system resources and organisation of care also hindered anticholinergic burden reduction. Good communication and relationships with patients, carers and other healthcare professionals were reported as important for successful anticholinergic burden reduction. Having a named person for prescribing decisions, and clear role boundaries, were also important facilitators. Conclusions This review identified important barriers and facilitators to anticholinergic burden reduction from healthcare provider perspectives which can inform implementation of such deprescribing interventions. Studies exploring patient and carer perspectives are presently absent but are required to ensure person-centeredness and feasibility of future interventions.

Randomised controlled trials in pre-hospital trauma: a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with about 5.8 million deaths globally and the leading cause of death in those aged 45 and younger. The pre-hospital phase of traumatic injury is particularly important as care received during this phase has effects on survival. The need for high quality clinical trials in this area has been recognised for several years as a key priority to improve the evidence base and, ultimately, clinical care in prehospital trauma. We aimed to systematically map the existing evidence base for pre-hospital trauma trials, to identify knowledge gaps and inform decisions about the future research agenda. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted first employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 23rd 2020) to identify randomised controlled trials within the pre-hospital trauma and injury setting. The evidence 'map' identified and described the characteristics of included studies and compared these studies against existing priorities for research. Narrative description of studies informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics was completed. RESULTS: Twenty-three eligible studies, including 10,405 participants across 14 countries, were identified and included in the systematic map. No clear temporal or geographical trends in publications were identified. Studies were categorised into six broad categories based on intervention type with evaluations of fluid therapy and analgesia making up 60% of the included trials. Overall, studies were heterogenous with regard to individual interventions within categories and outcomes reported. There was poor reporting across several studies. No studies reported patient involvement in the design or conduct of the trials. CONCLUSION: This mapping review has highlighted that evidence from trials in prehospital trauma is sparse and where trials have been completed, the reporting is generally poor and study designs sub-optimal. There is a continued need, and significant scope, for improvement in a setting where high quality evidence has great potential to make a demonstrable impact on care and outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of multiple frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease having dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis, sub-optimal fluid management has been linked with hospitalisation, cardiovascular complications and death. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness using multiple-frequency bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard fluid management based on clinical judgment. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare expected costs, outcomes and quality adjusted life years of the alternative management strategies. The relative effectiveness of the bioimpedance guided approach was informed by a systematic review of clinical trials, and focussed reviews were conducted to identify baseline event rates, costs and health state utility values for application in the model. The model was analysed probabilistically and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard management was £16,536 per QALY gained. There was a 59% chance of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY. Form the VOI analysis, the theoretical upper bound on the value of further research was £53 million. The value of further research was highest for parameters relating to the relative effectiveness of bioimpedance guided management on final health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple frequency bioimpedance testing may offer a cost-effective approach to improve fluid management in patients with CKD on dialysis, but further research would be of value to reduce the current uncertainties.

Interventions to Reduce Anticholinergic Burden in Adults Aged 65 and Older: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Older age is associated with multimorbidity and polypharmacy with high anticholinergic burden (ACB). High ACB is linked to adverse events such as poor physical functioning, dementia, cardiovascular disease, and falls. Interventions are needed to reduce this burden. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: The aim was to systematically review the literature to identify and describe studies of clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce ACB in adults (≥65 years) on polypharmacy regimes, compared with usual care. The objective was to answer the following questions: What are the contents of the interventions? Were these interventions clinically effective? Were these interventions cost effective?. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in adults aged 65 and older in any clinical setting. METHODS: Eligible papers reported primary or secondary research describing any type of intervention including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, or nonrandomized pre-post intervention studies (PPIs) published in English from January 2010 to February 2019. Databases searched included CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). RESULTS: The search yielded 5862 records. Eight studies (4 RCTs, 4 PPIs) conducted in hospital (4), community (2), nursing homes (1), and retirement villages (1) met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacists, either individually or as part of a team, provided the intervention in the majority of studies (6/8). Most (7/8) involved individual patient medication review followed by feedback to the prescriber. Two of the 4 RCTs and all non-RCTs reported a decrease in ACB following the intervention. No study reported cost outcome. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacists may be well placed to implement an ACB reduction intervention. This is the first systematic review of interventions to reduce ACB in older adults, and it highlights the need for development and testing of high-quality pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trials in community and specific patient populations at high risk of harm from ACB. [PROSPERO registration: CRD42018089764].

Barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden from the perspectives of patients, their carers, and healthcare professionals: A protocol for qualitative evidence synthesis.

Anticholinergic drugs are prescribed for a range of conditions including gastrointestinal disorders, overactive bladder, allergies, and depression. While in some circumstances anticholinergic effects are therapeutic, they also pose many undesired or adverse effects. The overall impact from concomitant use of multiple medications with anticholinergic properties is termed anticholinergic burden (ACB). Greater ACB is associated with increased risks of impaired physical and cognitive function, falls, cardiovascular events, and mortality. This has led to the development of interventions aimed at reducing ACB through the deprescribing of anticholinergic drugs. However, little is known about the implementation issues that may influence successful embedding and integration of such interventions into routine clinical practice. In this paper, we present the protocol for our systematic review that aims to identify the qualitative evidence for the barriers and facilitators to reduce ACB from the perspectives of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted across OVID Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. The review will be conducted in accordance with ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) and has been registered with PROSPERO (Registration CRD42018109084). Normalization process theory (NPT) will be used to explore, understand, and explain qualitative data in relation to factors that act as barriers or facilitators to ACB reduction.

Multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition requiring treatment such as conservative management, kidney transplantation or dialysis. To optimise the volume of fluid removed during dialysis (to avoid underhydration or overhydration), people are assigned a 'target weight', which is commonly assessed using clinical methods, such as weight gain between dialysis sessions, pre- and post-dialysis blood pressure and patient-reported symptoms. However, these methods are not precise, and measurement devices based on bioimpedance technology are increasingly used in dialysis centres. Current evidence on the role of bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with CKD receiving dialysis is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices versus standard clinical assessment for fluid management in people with CKD receiving dialysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases [e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)] conference abstracts and ongoing studies. There were no date restrictions. Searches were undertaken between June and October 2016. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluid management by multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices and standard clinical assessment in people receiving dialysis, and non-randomised studies evaluating the use of the devices for fluid management in people receiving dialysis. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A second reviewer cross-checked the extracted data. Standard meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Five RCTs (with 904 adult participants) and eight non-randomised studies (with 4915 adult participants) assessing the use of the Body Composition Monitor [(BCM) Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany] were included. Both absolute overhydration and relative overhydration were significantly lower in patients evaluated using BCM measurements than for those evaluated using standard clinical methods [weighted mean difference -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.15, p = 0.003, I2 = 49%; and weighted mean difference -1.84, 95% CI -3.65 to -0.03; p = 0.05, I2 = 52%, respectively]. Pooled effects of bioimpedance monitoring on systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mean difference -2.46 mmHg, 95% CI -5.07 to 0.15 mmHg; p = 0.06, I2 = 0%), arterial stiffness (mean difference -1.18, 95% CI -3.14 to 0.78; p = 0.24, I2 = 92%) and mortality (hazard ratio = 0.689, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.08; p = 0.51) were not statistically significant. The economic evaluation showed that, when dialysis costs were included in the model, the probability of bioimpedance monitoring being cost-effective ranged from 13% to 26% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. With dialysis costs excluded, the corresponding probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 61% to 67%. LIMITATIONS: Lack of evidence on clinically relevant outcomes, children receiving dialysis, and any multifrequency bioimpedance devices, other than the BCM. CONCLUSIONS: BCM used in addition to clinical assessment may lower overhydration and potentially improve intermediate outcomes, such as SBP, but effects on mortality have not been demonstrated. If dialysis costs are not considered, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falls below £20,000, with modest effects on mortality and/or hospitalisation rates. The current findings are not generalisable to paediatric populations nor across other multifrequency bioimpedance devices. FUTURE WORK: Services that routinely use the BCM should report clinically relevant intermediate and long-term outcomes before and after introduction of the device to extend the current evidence base. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041785. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014. METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUNDS: Current open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair have shown similar recurrence rates. However, chronic pain has been associated with Lichtenstein mesh repair, the most common surgical procedure for inguinal hernia in the UK. The position of the mesh is probably an important factor. The Lichtenstein method requires dissection of the inguinal wall and fixation of the mesh. In contrast, in the open preperitoneal approach the mesh is placed in the preperitoneal space and held in place with intra-abdominal pressure. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best open approach for repair of inguinal hernia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open preperitoneal mesh repair compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) from inception to November 2014 and contacted experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared open preperitoneal mesh repair with Lichtenstein mesh repair for the treatment of inguinal hernia. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. One reviewer completed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included studies, and two reviewers independently cross-checked the details extracted. Meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of open mesh procedures from a NHS health services perspective over a 25-year time horizon. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs involving 1568 participants were included. Participants who underwent open preperitoneal mesh repair returned to work and normal activities significantly earlier than those who underwent Lichtenstein mesh repair [mean difference -1.49 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.78 to -0.20 days]. Although no significant differences were observed between the two open approaches for incidence of pain [risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27], numbness (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.56), recurrences (Peto odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.52) or postoperative complications, fewer events were generally reported after open preperitoneal mesh repair. The results of the economic evaluation indicate that the open preperitoneal mesh repair was £256 less costly and improved health outcomes by 0.041 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair. The open preperitoneal procedure was the most efficient and dominant treatment strategy with a high (> 98%) probability of being cost-effectiveness for the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 for a QALY. Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. However, the magnitude of cost saving or QALY gain was sensitive to some model assumptions. LIMITATIONS: Overall, the included trials were of small sample size (mean 130.7 participants) and at high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analyses results demonstrated significant statistical heterogeneity for most of the assessed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Open preperitoneal mesh repair appears to be a safe and efficacious alternative to Lichtenstein mesh repair. Further research is required to determine the long-term effects of these surgical procedures as well as the most effective open preperitoneal repair technique in terms of both clinical efficacy and costs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013510. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren's disease is a slowly progressive condition of the hand, characterised by the formation of nodules in the palm that gradually develop into fibrotic cords. Contracture of the cords produces deformities of the fingers. Surgery is recommended for moderate and severe contractures, but complications and/or recurrences are frequent. Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) has been developed as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for some patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collagenase as an alternative to surgery for adults with Dupuytren's contracture with a palpable cord. DATA SOURCES: We searched all major electronic databases from 1990 to February 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative studies and observational studies involving collagenase and/or surgical interventions were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of collagenase, percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF) and limited fasciectomy (LF). Results were reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate model and parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Five RCTs comparing collagenase with placebo (493 participants), three RCTs comparing surgical techniques (334 participants), two non-randomised studies comparing collagenase and surgery (105 participants), five non-randomised comparative studies assessing various surgical procedures (3571 participants) and 15 collagenase case series (3154 participants) were included. Meta-analyses of RCTs assessing CCH versus placebo were performed. Joints randomised to collagenase were more likely to achieve clinical success. Collagenase-treated participants experienced significant reduction in contracture and an increased range of motion compared with placebo-treated participants. Participants treated with collagenase also experienced significantly more adverse events, most of which were mild or moderate. Four serious adverse events were observed in the collagenase group: two tendon ruptures, one pulley rupture and one complex regional pain syndrome. Two tendon ruptures were also reported in two collagenase case series. Non-randomised studies comparing collagenase with surgery produced variable results and were at high risk of bias. Serious adverse events across surgery studies were low. Recurrence rates ranged from 0% (at 90 days) to 100% (at 8 years) for collagenase and from 0% (at 2.7 years for fasciectomy) to 85% (at 5 years for PNF) for surgery. The results of the de novo economic analysis show that PNF was the cheapest treatment option, whereas LF generated the greatest QALY gains. Collagenase was more costly and generated fewer QALYs compared with LF. LF was £1199 more costly and generated an additional 0.11 QALYs in comparison with PNF. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £10,871 per QALY gained. Two subgroup analyses were conducted for a population of patients with moderate and severe disease and up to two joints affected. In both subgroup analyses, collagenase remained dominated. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of the review was the lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing collagenase with surgery and the limited evidence base for estimating the effects of specific surgical procedures (fasciectomy and PNF). Substantial differences across studies further limited the comparability of available evidence. The economic model was derived from a naive indirect comparison and was hindered by a lack of suitable data. In addition, there was considerable uncertainty about the appropriateness of many assumptions and parameters used in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Collagenase was significantly better than placebo. There was no evidence that collagenase was clinically better or worse than surgical treatments. LF was the most cost-effective choice to treat moderate to severe contractures, whereas collagenase was not. However, the results of the cost-utility analysis are based on a naive indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness, and a RCT is required to confirm or refute these findings. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006248. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring (self-testing and self-management) could be a valid option for oral anticoagulation therapy monitoring in the NHS, but current evidence on its clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness is limited. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care coagulometers for the self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard clinic monitoring. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Bioscience Information Service, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2007 to May 2013. Reports published before 2007 were identified from the existing Cochrane review (major databases searched from inception to 2007). The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, other relevant reviews, routine sources of cost data and clinical experts' advice. REVIEW METHODS: We assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating self-monitoring in people with atrial fibrillation or heart valve disease requiring long-term anticoagulation therapy. CoaguChek(®) XS and S models (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), INRatio2(®) PT/INR monitor (Alere Inc., San Diego, CA USA), and ProTime Microcoagulation system(®) (International Technidyne Corporation, Nexus Dx, Edison, NJ, USA) coagulometers were compared with standard monitoring. Where possible, we combined data from included trials using standard inverse variance methods. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness over a 10-year period. RESULTS: We identified 26 RCTs (published in 45 papers) with a total of 8763 participants. CoaguChek was used in 85% of the trials. Primary analyses were based on data from 21 out of 26 trials. Only four trials were at low risk of bias. Major clinical events: self-monitoring was significantly better than standard monitoring in preventing thromboembolic events [relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.84; p = 0.004]. In people with artificial heart valves (AHVs), self-monitoring almost halved the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.82; p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92; p = 0.02). There was greater reduction in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality through self-management but not through self-testing. Intermediate outcomes: self-testing, but not self-management, showed a modest but significantly higher percentage of time in therapeutic range, compared with standard care (weighted mean difference 4.44, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18; p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes: improvements in patients' quality of life related to self-monitoring were observed in six out of nine trials. High preference rates were reported for self-monitoring (77% to 98% in four trials). Net health and social care costs over 10 years were £7295 (self-monitoring with INRatio2); £7324 (standard care monitoring); £7333 (self-monitoring with CoaguChek XS) and £8609 (self-monitoring with ProTime). The estimated quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain associated with self-monitoring was 0.03. Self-monitoring with INRatio2 or CoaguChek XS was found to have ≈ 80% chance of being cost-effective, compared with standard monitoring at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard monitoring, self-monitoring appears to be safe and effective, especially for people with AHVs. Self-monitoring, and in particular self-management, of anticoagulation status appeared cost-effective when pooled estimates of clinical effectiveness were applied. However, if self-monitoring does not result in significant reductions in thromboembolic events, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, based on a comparison of annual monitoring costs alone. Trials investigating the longer-term outcomes of self-management are needed, as well as direct comparisons of the various point-of-care coagulometers. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004944. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy compared with standard clinic care. DESIGN: Systematic review of current evidence and economic modelling. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched up to May 2013. The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, routine sources of cost data and advice from clinical experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing self-monitoring versus standard clinical care in people with different clinical conditions. Self-monitoring included both self-management (patients conducted the tests and adjusted their treatment according to an algorithm) and self-testing (patients conducted the tests, but received treatment recommendations from a clinician). Various point-of-care coagulometers were considered. RESULTS: 26 RCTs (8763 participants) were included. Both self-management and self-testing were as safe as standard care in terms of major bleeding events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45, p=0.690, and RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, p=0.92, respectively). Self-management was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.69, p ≤ 0.001) and with a borderline significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, p=0.06) than standard care. Self-testing resulted in a modest increase in time in therapeutic range compared with standard care (weighted mean difference, WMD 4.4%, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18, p=0.02). Total health and social care costs over 10 years were £7324 with standard care and £7326 with self-monitoring (estimated quality adjusted life year, QALY gain was 0.028). Self-monitoring was found to have ∼ 80% probability of being cost-effective compared with standard care applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Within the base case model, applying the pooled relative effect of thromboembolic events, self-management alone was highly cost-effective while self-testing was not. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring appears to be a safe and cost-effective option. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42013004944.