Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix--DySIS, LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and Niris Imaging System: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Women in England (aged 25-64 years) are invited for cervical screening every 3-5 years to assess for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer. CIN is a term describing abnormal changes in the cells of the cervix, ranging from CIN1 to CIN3, which is precancerous. Colposcopy is used to visualise the cervix. Three adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the cervix have been included in this assessment: Dynamic Spectral Imaging System (DySIS), the LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and the Niris Imaging System. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix for patients referred for colposcopy through the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. DATA SOURCES: Sixteen electronic databases [Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), BIOSIS Previews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database; Inspec, Inside Conferences, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PASCAL, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Science Citation Index (SCI) - Conference Proceedings], and two clinical trial registries [ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials (CCT)] were searched to September-October 2011. REVIEW METHODS: Studies comparing DySIS, LuViva or Niris with conventional colposcopy were sought; a narrative synthesis was undertaken. A decision-analytic model was developed, which measured outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were evaluated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services with a time horizon of 50 years. RESULTS: Six studies were included: two studies of DySIS, one study of LuViva and three studies of Niris. The DySIS studies were well reported and had a low risk of bias; they found higher sensitivity with DySIS (both the DySISmap alone and in combination with colposcopy) than colposcopy alone for identifying CIN2+ disease, although specificity was lower with DySIS. The studies of LuViva and Niris were poorly reported and had limitations, which indicated that their results were subject to a high risk of bias; the results of these studies cannot be considered reliable. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that both DySIS treatment options are less costly and more effective than colposcopy alone in the overall weighted population; these results were robust to the ranges tested in the sensitivity analysis. DySISmap alone was more costly and more effective in several of the referral groups but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was never higher than £1687 per QALY. DySIS plus colposcopy was less costly and more effective in all reasons for referral. Only indicative analyses were carried out on Niris and LuViva and no conclusions could be made on their cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: The assessment is limited by the available evidence on the new technologies, natural history of the disease area and current treatment patterns. CONCLUSIONS: DySIS, particularly in combination with colposcopy, has higher sensitivity than colposcopy alone. There is no reliable evidence on the clinical effectiveness of LuViva and Niris. DySIS plus colposcopy appears to be less costly and more effective than both the DySISmap alone and colposcopy alone; these results were robust to the sensitivity analyses undertaken. Given the lack of reliable evidence on LuViva and Niris, no conclusions on their potential cost-effectiveness can be drawn. There is some uncertainty about how generalisable these findings will be to the population of women referred for colposcopy in the future, owing to the introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) triage test and uptake of the HPV vaccine.

Antiviral drugs for the treatment of influenza: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk' and otherwise healthy populations. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Pascal, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched from October 2001 to November 2007. A supplementary search was undertaken in June 2008 for information relating to drug resistance during the 2007-8 influenza season. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of influenza were undertaken. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials comparing antivirals with each other, placebo, or best symptomatic care were included in the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in patients presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). Primary outcomes were measures of symptom duration (median time to alleviation of symptoms and median time to return to normal activity). Incidence of complications, mortality, hospitalisations, antibiotic use (as a surrogate for complications) and adverse events was also assessed. In addition, an independent decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment from the perspective of the UK NHS. RESULTS: Amantadine was excluded at an early stage, owing to a lack of any new trials that met the inclusion criteria and the limitations of the existing evidence. The review therefore focused on the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) oseltamivir and zanamivir, both of which were found to be effective in reducing symptom duration (zanamavir by 0.5-1.0 days and oseltamivir by 0.5-1.5 days). However, the effect sizes were often small and unlikely to be clinically significant in many cases, particularly in healthy adults. For the at-risk subgroups, effect sizes for differences in symptom duration were generally larger, and potentially more clinically significant, than those seen in healthy adults (median duration of symptoms reduced by 1-2 days with zanamivir and 0.50-0.75 days with oseltamivir). However, there was greater uncertainty around these results, with estimates often failing to reach statistical significance. The most consistent data and strongest evidence related to antibiotic use, with both zanamivir and oseltamivir resulting in statistically significant reductions in antibiotic use. In general, the estimates from the cost-effectiveness model were more favourable in at-risk populations (including adults and children with comorbid conditions and the elderly) compared with otherwise healthy populations. Zanamivir was the optimal NI treatment in each of the at-risk populations considered, and oseltamivir was optimal for healthy populations (both adults and children). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness data for population subgroups used to inform the multiparameter evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness modelling were, in places, limited and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings of this review. Trials were often not designed to determine clinical effectiveness in population subgroups and hence, although the direction of effect was clear, estimates of differences in symptom duration tended to be subject to greater uncertainty in subgroups. Despite some concerns, the use of NIs in at-risk populations appeared to be a cost-effective approach for the treatment of influenza. Well-designed observational studies might also be considered to evaluate the clinical course of influenza in terms of complications, hospitalisation, mortality and quality of life, as well as the impact of NIs.

The perceived racism scale: a multidimensional assessment of the experience of white racism among African Americans.

The experience of racism is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon. At present, there are few instruments that attempt to capture the experience of racism in all of its complexity. For this study, a new instrument, the Perceived Racism Scale, has been constructed to assess the experience of racism in African Americans in a multidimensional manner. The scale not only provides a measure of the frequency of exposure to many manifestations of racism (including individual and institutional, overt and covert, attitudinal, behavioral, and cultural), but takes a step forward in more comprehensively measuring the experience of racism by assessing emotional and behavioral coping responses to racism. These responses are measured with respect to exposure to racism in three situational domains: on the job, in academic settings, and in the public realm. Measurement of responses to a fourth domain, that of exposure to racist statements, is also included. It is hoped that the Perceived Racism Scale will facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the experience of racism among African Americans and, through its use in research and clinical settings, will ultimately move us closer to reducing the prevalence and potentially untoward effects of racism.

The assessment of clinical investigations: the Greenwich Grading System and its application to electrodiagnostic testing in ophthalmology.

The aim of the study was to describe the Greenwich Grading System, a simple method developed for assessing the value of a clinical investigation, and to investigate its application to electrodiagnostic testing (EDT) in ophthalmology patients. This was done by means of a retrospective case analysis carried out on 95 unselected, consecutive patients referred from a district ophthalmology department for electrophysiological investigation at a regional neurosciences centre. The classification was developed to quantify the effect of EDT on the diagnosis, investigation and treatment in each case. From this, an overall value of EDT in management could be assessed for different groups of patients. It was found that the classification was easy to apply and analyse. EDT was valuable in 80% of patients referred, and was classified as essential or important in 53 (56%) patients. In no patient did EDT adversely affect the clinical outcome. The diagnosis was changed in 7 (7%) patients, and made in 5 (5%). Diagnostic certainty was increased in a further 62 (65%) patients. Other investigations were avoided by performing electrophysiology in 28 (29%) cases. Treatment was initiated in 6 (6%) cases and altered in 8 (8%). It is concluded that the Greenwich Grading System, as applied to EDT in ophthalmology, demonstrated the value of electrophysiological investigation in ophthalmology patients and identified the patient groups which benefit most from testing.

Radiographic imaging studies in pediatric chronic sinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of chronic sinusitis is dependent on the radiographic evidence of sinus disease. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of radiographs and computed tomographic (CT) scans for the examination of the paranasal sinuses of 91 patients of both sexes, ranging in age from 2 to 17 years, who had chronic upper respiratory tract symptoms for at least 3 months. The CT scan findings were categorized as no disease; minimal disease, and mild, moderate, and severe sinusitis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (63%) had chronic sinusitis: CT scan abnormalities were minimal in 17%, mild in 19%, moderate in 21%, and severe in 43%. There was a statistically significant correlation between rhinorrhea (r = 0.25, p = 0.01), cough (r = 0.27, p = 0.009), and the severity of sinus abnormality as determined by CT scan. Clinical presentation in the mild, moderate, and severe sinusitis groups (p < 0.05) was significantly different from that of the no disease group, whereas the minimal disease group had subclinical presentation (p = 0.11). Clinically significant chronic sinusitis often occurred at multiple sites: 44% of patients had pansinusitis, 50% had disease involvement of at least two sinuses, and 6% had disease in a single sinus. When sinus radiographs were compared with CT scans (n = 70 cases), radiographs could not identify minimal disease. For clinically significant sinusitis, sinus radiographs detected disease in 1 of 5 (20%) frontal sinuses, 0 of 12 (0%) sphenoidal sinuses, and 17 of 31 (54%) ethmoidal sinuses. With the minimal criteria of 40% to 50% opacification or fluid level filling of the maxillary antrum, radiographs detected disease in 37 of 49 (75%) cases. The sensitivity and specificity for a Waters view to confirm clinically significant chronic sinusitis without specifying the sites and severity were acceptable at 76% and 81%, respectively. When limited sinus CT scans were compared with full CT evaluation (n = 49 cases), limited studies detected 5 of 5 (100%) frontal, 9 of 11 (82%) sphenoidal, 14 of 19 (73%) ethmoidal, and 39 of 40 (97%) cases of maxillary sinusitis. The overall agreement was 88%. CONCLUSIONS: A single Waters view is an acceptable part of the initial evaluation of pediatric chronic sinusitis; however, a limited CT scan is a better alternative.

The clinical assessment of joint inflammatory activity in rheumatoid arthritis related to radiological progression.

A simple clinical method for the assessment of joint disease activity is described, and analysed with respect to radiological progression of erosive disease. Ninety-four patients with rheumatoid arthritis attending a special research clinic as part of a prospective study were studied over a three-year period. A significant correlation was found between clinical activity, assessed at intervals of four months, and progressive erosive disease but not with juxta-articular osteoporosis. This clinical method compares favourably with a modification of the articular index described by the Cooperating Clinics of North America.