KardiaMobile 6L for measuring QT interval in people having antipsychotic medication to inform early value assessment: a systematic review.

Background: The indication for this assessment is the use of the KardiaMobile six-lead electrocardiogram device for the assessment of QT interval-based cardiac risk in service users prior to the initiation of, or for the monitoring of, antipsychotic medications, which are associated with an established risk of QT interval prolongation. Objectives: To provide an early value assessment of whether KardiaMobile six-lead has the potential to provide an effective and safe alternative to 12-lead electrocardiogram for initial assessment and monitoring of QT interval-based cardiac risk in people taking antipsychotic medications. Review methods: Twenty-seven databases were searched to April/May 2022. Review methods followed published guidelines. Where appropriate, study quality was assessed using appropriate risk of bias tools. Results were summarised by research question; accuracy/technical performance; clinical effects (on cardiac and psychiatric outcomes); service user acceptability/satisfaction; costs of KardiaMobile six-lead. Results: We did not identify any studies which provided information about the diagnostic accuracy of KardiaMobile six-lead, for the detection of corrected QT-interval prolongation, in any population. All studies which reported information about agreement between QT interval measurements (corrected and/or uncorrected) with KardiaMobile six-lead versus 12-lead electrocardiogram were conducted in non-psychiatric populations, used cardiologists and/or multiple readers to interpret electrocardiograms. Where reported or calculable, the mean difference in corrected QT interval between devices (12-lead electrocardiogram vs. KardiaMobile six-lead) was generally small (≤ 10 ms) and corrected QT interval measured using KardiaMobile six-lead was consistently lower than that measured using 12-lead electrocardiogram. All information about the use of KardiaMobile six-lead, in the context of QT interval-based cardiac risk assessment for service users who require antipsychotic medication, was taken from retrospective surveys of staff and service users who had chosen to use KardiaMobile six-lead during pilots, described in two unpublished project reports. It is important to note that both these project reports relate to pilot studies which were not intended to be used in wider evaluations of KardiaMobile six-lead for use in the NHS. Both reports included survey results which indicated that the use of KardiaMobile six-lead may be associated with reductions in the time taken to complete an electrocardiogram and costs, relative to 12-lead electrocardiogram, and that KardiaMobile six-lead was preferred over 12-lead electrocardiogram by almost all responding staff and service users. Limitations: There was a lack of published evidence about the efficacy of KardiaMobile six-lead for initial assessment and monitoring of QT interval-based cardiac risk in people taking antipsychotic medications. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support a full diagnostic assessment evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of KardiaMobile six-lead, in the context of QT interval-based cardiac risk assessment for service users who require antipsychotic medication. The evidence to inform the aims of this early value assessment (i.e. to assess whether the device has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective) was also limited. This report includes a comprehensive list of research recommendations, both to reduce the uncertainty around this early value assessment and to provide the additional data needed to inform a full diagnostic assessment, including cost-effectiveness modelling. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022336695. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135520) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Some medicines used for people with certain mental health problems can increase the risk of developing serious heart conditions. Although these heart conditions are rare, it is generally recommended that people have an electrocardiogram examination before starting to take these medicines. People who need to continue these medications over a period of time may need additional electrocardiograms every so often, to check for any heart problems that have developed recently. KardiaMobile six-lead (or 6-lead) is a portable electrocardiogram that may offer a less intrusive way to take electrocardiogram measurements. This is because less undressing is needed as the electrodes are only applied to fingers of the left and right hand and the left ankle or knee and the cold gel is not needed. Testing using the KardiaMobile six-lead device can be carried out at the patient's home. These features might mean that the KardiaMobile six-lead device could be more acceptable than the 12-lead electrocardiogram to some patients. This assessment considered whether the KardiaMobile six-lead device has the potential to provide an effective and safe alternative to 12-lead electrocardiogram for initial assessment and monitoring of the risk of heart problems in people taking antipsychotic medications. Based on the available evidence, it remains unclear whether KardiaMobile six-lead has adequately demonstrated sufficient evidence of potential advantage(s) over current practice to justify further research to inform assessment of its clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Our report provides detailed recommendations about the research needed, to provide further information about potential benefits so that a decision can be made about whether it should be used in the NHS in England, after further research has been completed.

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

Lenalidomide with Rituximab for Previously Treated Follicular Lymphoma and Marginal Zone Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of lenalidomide (Revlimid®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (MabThera®), together referred to as R2, for the treatment of adults with treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included one relevant study, for the comparison of R2 versus rituximab monotherapy (R-mono): the AUGMENT trial. In addition, the company performed an unanchored indirect comparison of R2 versus rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) and rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CVP), using data for R2 from the AUGMENT trial and pooled data for R-CHOP/R-CVP from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN) database. During the STA process, the company provided an addendum containing evidence on only the FL population, in line with the marketing authorisation obtained at that time, which did not include MZL. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by the company were £27,768 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, £41,602 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and £23,412 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. The ERG's concerns included the validity of the unanchored comparison, the unavailability of a state transition model to verify the outcomes of the partitioned survival model, substantial uncertainty in survival curves, and potential over-estimation of utility values. The revised ERG base case resulted in ICERs ranging from £16,874 to £44,888 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, from £23,135 to £59,810 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and from £18,779 to £27,156 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. Substantial uncertainty remained around these ranges. NICE recommended R2 within its marketing authorisation, as an option for previously treated FL (grade 1-3A) in adults, contingent on the company providing lenalidomide according to the commercial arrangement.

Exercise/physical activity and health outcomes: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary lifestyle is a major risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes. It has been estimated that approximately 3.2 million deaths each year are attributable to insufficient levels of physical activity. We evaluated the available evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on the effectiveness of exercise/physical activity for various health outcomes. METHODS: Overview and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Library was searched from 01.01.2000 to issue 1, 2019. No language restrictions were imposed. Only CSRs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Both healthy individuals, those at risk of a disease, and medically compromised patients of any age and gender were eligible. We evaluated any type of exercise or physical activity interventions; against any types of controls; and measuring any type of health-related outcome measures. The AMSTAR-2 tool for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies was utilised. RESULTS: Hundred and fifty CSRs met the inclusion criteria. There were 54 different conditions. Majority of CSRs were of high methodological quality. Hundred and thirty CSRs employed meta-analytic techniques and 20 did not. Limitations for studies were the most common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence. Based on 10 CSRs and 187 RCTs with 27,671 participants, there was a 13% reduction in mortality rates risk ratio (RR) 0.87 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.78 to 0.96]; I2 = 26.6%, [prediction interval (PI) 0.70, 1.07], median effect size (MES) = 0.93 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.81, 1.00]. Data from 15 CSRs and 408 RCTs with 32,984 participants showed a small improvement in quality of life (QOL) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18 [95% CI 0.08, 0.28]; I2 = 74.3%; PI -0.18, 0.53], MES = 0.20 [IQR 0.07, 0.39]. Subgroup analyses by the type of condition showed that the magnitude of effect size was the largest among patients with mental health conditions. CONCLUSION: There is a plethora of CSRs evaluating the effectiveness of physical activity/exercise. The evidence suggests that physical activity/exercise reduces mortality rates and improves QOL with minimal or no safety concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42019120295 ) on 10th January 2019.

Melatonin and health: an umbrella review of health outcomes and biological mechanisms of action.

BACKGROUND: Our aims were to evaluate critically the evidence from systematic reviews as well as narrative reviews of the effects of melatonin (MLT) on health and to identify the potential mechanisms of action involved. METHODS: An umbrella review of the evidence across systematic reviews and narrative reviews of endogenous and exogenous (supplementation) MLT was undertaken. The Oxman checklist for assessing the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was utilised. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and CINAHL. In addition, reference lists were screened. We included reviews of the effects of MLT on any type of health-related outcome measure. RESULTS: Altogether, 195 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Most were of low methodological quality (mean -4.5, standard deviation 6.7). Of those, 164 did not pool the data and were synthesised narratively (qualitatively) whereas the remaining 31 used meta-analytic techniques and were synthesised quantitatively. Seven meta-analyses were significant with P values less than 0.001 under the random-effects model. These pertained to sleep latency, pre-operative anxiety, prevention of agitation and risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There is an abundance of reviews evaluating the effects of exogenous and endogenous MLT on health. In general, MLT has been shown to be associated with a wide variety of health outcomes in clinically and methodologically heterogeneous populations. Many reviews stressed the need for more high-quality randomised clinical trials to reduce the existing uncertainties.

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions.

BACKGROUND: Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.