Ano-uro-genital mucosal melanoma UK national guidelines.

Ano-uro-genital (AUG) mucosal melanomas are rare cancers associated with poor outcomes and limited evidence-based management. The United Kingdom AUG mucosal melanoma guideline development group used an evidence-based systematic approach to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of patients diagnosed with AUG mucosal melanomas. The guidelines were sent for international peer review, and are accredited by The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). A summary of the key recommendations is presented. The full documents are available on the Melanoma Focus website.

Less is more: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of radical versus conservative primary resection in anorectal melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Anorectal melanoma (ARM) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. There is no consensus as to the optimal primary surgical treatment for ARM, with advocates for both radical (abdominoperineal resection [APR]) and conservative strategies (wide local excision [WLE]). Here, we report a systematic review of studies comparing outcomes between these strategies. METHODS: Studies comparing APR with WLE in patients with ARM were included, and a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was performed. Outcomes deemed critical included overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence and quality of life. RESULTS: Forty studies were identified, of which 27 were suitable for inclusion. Twenty-three studies compared overall survival between WLE and APR, with no difference in outcomes noted (risk ratio [RR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-1.07, p = 0.13). Seven studies compared disease-free survival, with no difference in outcomes noted (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.61-1.91, p = 0.79). A total of 19 studies compared local recurrence rates, with again no significant difference in outcomes noted (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.44-1.14, p = 0.16). None of the studies identified reported quality of life-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that a radical primary surgical strategy improves outcomes in ARM. Therefore, given the well-documented morbidity associated with APR, WLE with regular surveillance for local recurrence should be the primary strategy in most patients.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies for people undergoing elective total knee replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism is a major patient safety concern. Provision of prophylaxis to patients admitted for elective total knee replacement surgery has been proposed as an effective strategy to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. We aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of all available prophylaxis strategies in this setting. METHODS: We did a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials to assess the relative efficacy and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies and to populate an economic model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of these strategies and informed the updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline recommendations for patients undergoing elective total knee replacement surgery. The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Embase, and Medline were last searched on June 19, 2017, with key terms relating to the population (venous thromboembolism and total knee replacement) and the interventions compared, including available pharmacological and mechanical interventions. Outcomes of interest were deep vein thrombosis (symptomatic and asymptomatic), pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Risk of bias was assessed, and relevant data extracted from the included randomised controlled trials for the network meta-analyses. Relative risks (RR; with 95% credible intervals [95% CrI]) compared to no prophylaxis, median ranks (with 95% CrI), and the probability of being the best intervention were calculated. The study was done in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. FINDINGS: 25 randomised controlled trials were included in the network meta-analyses. 23 trials (19 interventions; n=15 028) were included in the deep vein thrombosis network, 12 in the pulmonary embolism network (13 interventions; n=15 555), and 19 in the major bleeding network (11 interventions; n=19 797). Risk of bias ranged from very low to high. Rivaroxaban ranked first for prevention of deep vein thrombosis (RR 0·12 [95% CrI 0·06-0·22]). Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH; standard prophylactic dose, 28-35 days) ranked first in the pulmonary embolism network (RR 0·02 [95% CrI 0·00-3·86]) and LMWH (low prophylactic dose, 10-14 days) ranked first in the major bleeding network (odds ratio 0·08 [95% CrI 0·00-1·76]), but the results for pulmonary embolism and major bleeding are highly uncertain. INTERPRETATION: Single prophylaxis strategies are more effective in prevention of deep vein thrombosis in the elective total knee replacement population than combination strategies, with rivaroxaban being the most effective. The results of the pulmonary embolism and major bleeding meta-analyses are uncertain and no clear conclusion can be made other than what is biologically plausible (eg, that no prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis strategies should have the lowest risk of major bleeding). FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Strategies for People Undergoing Elective Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement Surgeries in the English National Health Service.

Background: Major orthopedic surgery, such as elective total hip replacement (eTHR) and elective total knee replacement (eTKR), are associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than other surgical procedures. Little is known, however, about the cost-effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis strategies in people undergoing these procedures. Aim: The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the English National Health Service perspective to inform NICE guideline (NG89) recommendations. Materials and Methods: Cost-utility analysis, using decision modeling, was undertaken to compare 15 VTE prophylaxis strategies for eTHR and 12 for eTKR, in addition to "no prophylaxis" strategy. The analysis complied with the NICE Reference Case. Structure and assumptions were agreed with the guideline committee. Incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) was calculated, vs. the model comparator (LMWH+ antiembolism stockings), at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The model was run probabilistically. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (SAs) were undertaken to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The most cost-effective strategies were LMWH for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days (INMB = £530 [95% CI: -£784 to £1,103], probability of being most cost-effective = 72%) for eTHR, and foot pump (INMB = £353 [95% CI: -£101 to £665]; probability of being most cost-effective = 18%) for eTKR. There was considerable uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness ranking in the eTKR analysis. The results were robust to change in all SAs. Conclusions: For eTHR, LMWH (standard dose) for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days is the most cost-effective VTE prophylaxis strategy. For eTKR, the results are highly uncertain but foot pump appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy, followed closely by aspirin (low dose). Future research should focus on assessing cost-effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis in the eTKR population.

Diagnosis and Management of Iron Deficiency in CKD: A Summary of the NICE Guideline Recommendations and Their Rationale.

The UK-based National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has updated its guidance on iron deficiency and anemia management in chronic kidney disease. This report outlines the recommendations regarding iron deficiency and their rationale. Serum ferritin alone or transferrin saturation alone are no longer recommended as diagnostic tests to assess iron deficiency. Red blood cell markers (percentage hypochromic red blood cells, reticulocyte hemoglobin content, or reticulocyte hemoglobin equivalent) are better than ferritin level alone at predicting responsiveness to intravenous iron. When red blood cell markers are not available, a combination of transferrin saturation < 20% and ferritin level < 100ng/mL is an alternative. In comparisons of the cost-effectiveness of different iron status testing and treatment strategies, using percentage hypochromic red blood cells > 6% was the most cost-effective strategy for both hemodialysis and nonhemodialysis patients. A trial of oral iron replacement is recommended in people not receiving an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) and not on hemodialysis therapy. For children receiving ESAs, but not treated by hemodialysis, oral iron should be considered. In adults and children receiving ESAs and/or on hemodialysis therapy, intravenous iron should be offered. When giving intravenous iron, high-dose low-frequency administration is recommended. For all children and for adults receiving in-center hemodialysis, low-dose high-frequency administration may be more appropriate.