EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: EarlyCDT Lung (Oncimmune Holdings plc, Nottingham, UK) is a blood test to assess malignancy risk in people with solid pulmonary nodules. It measures the presence of seven lung cancer-associated autoantibodies. Elevated levels of these autoantibodies may indicate malignant disease. The results of the test might be used to modify the risk of malignancy estimated by existing risk calculators, including the Brock and Herder models. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EarlyCDT Lung; and to develop a conceptual model and identify evidence requirements for a robust cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database ( NHS EED ) and the international Health Technology Assessment database were searched on 8 March 2021. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was performed of evidence on EarlyCDT Lung, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Study quality was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Evidence on other components of the pulmonary nodule diagnostic pathway (computerised tomography surveillance, Brock risk, Herder risk, positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and biopsy) was also reviewed. When feasible, bivariate meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using EarlyCDT Lung. Additional reviews of cost-effectiveness studies evaluated (1) other diagnostic strategies for lung cancer and (2) screening approaches for lung cancer. A conceptual model was developed. RESULTS: A total of 47 clinical publications on EarlyCDT Lung were identified, but only five cohorts (695 patients) reported diagnostic accuracy data on patients with pulmonary nodules. All cohorts were small or at high risk of bias. EarlyCDT Lung on its own was found to have poor diagnostic accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 20.2% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 35.5%) and specificity of 92.2% (95% confidence interval 86.2% to 95.8%). This sensitivity was substantially lower than that estimated by the manufacturer (41.3%). No evidence on the clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung was identified. The simulation study suggested that EarlyCDT Lung might potentially have some benefit when considering intermediate risk nodules (10-70% risk) after Herder risk analysis. Two cost-effectiveness studies on EarlyCDT Lung for pulmonary nodules were identified; none was considered suitable to inform the current decision problem. The conceptualisation process identified three core components for a future cost-effectiveness assessment of EarlyCDT Lung: (1) the features of the subpopulations and relevant heterogeneity, (2) the way EarlyCDT Lung test results affect subsequent clinical management decisions and (3) how changes in these decisions can affect outcomes. All reviewed studies linked earlier diagnosis to stage progression and stage shift to final outcomes, but evidence on these components was sparse. LIMITATIONS: The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules was very limited, preventing meta-analyses and economic analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions as to its diagnostic accuracy or clinical or economic value. FUTURE WORK: Prospective cohort studies, in which EarlyCDT Lung is used among patients with identified pulmonary nodules, are required to support a future assessment of the clinical and economic value of this test. Studies should investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung in combination with Brock and Herder risk assessments. A well-designed cost-effectiveness study is also required, integrating emerging relevant evidence with the recommendations in this report. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021242248. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People at risk of lung cancer sometimes undergo computerised tomography ( CT ) scans of their lungs. These scans may identify lung nodules that could be cancerous. Currently, CT scans of the lung nodules, or sometimes further positron emission tomography­computerised tomography ( PET-CT ) scans, are used to predict the risk that a nodule is cancerous. EarlyCDT Lung is a blood test that detects substances, called autoantibodies, associated with having cancer. If the autoantibodies are detected, the chance of a lung nodule being cancerous may be substantially increased. This test could help doctors make decisions about whether to treat immediately, carry out further tests or monitor the nodule over time to see if it grows or changes shape. This project examined the evidence on the clinical value of the EarlyCDT Lung test. We reviewed all published studies of EarlyCDT Lung and reanalysed the reported data. We found that there has been little research on EarlyCDT Lung among people with lung nodules (only five studies comprising 695 patients). This makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. The evidence suggests that EarlyCDT Lung may not be particularly effective at determining which lung nodules are cancerous, and may not improve diagnosis when compared with using CT and PET - CT scans. However, this is uncertain because the evidence is so limited. This project also looked for evidence on the value for money of the EarlyCDT Lung test in detecting lung cancer, and found no relevant evidence. This means that the value for money of EarlyCDT Lung is largely unknown, and there is currently no good evidence to support further analyses on this. We therefore sought to summarise the information and analyses that would be needed to support a future assessment of the value for money of EarlyCDT Lung.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and outcomes for new-onset atrial fibrillation in ICU patients: the CAFE scoping review and database analyses.

BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care. OBJECTIVES: In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK. RESULTS: Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior. FUTURE WORK: Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation can cause heart failure and stroke. It can also affect heart rate in different ways. It is common for patients admitted to intensive care units to develop atrial fibrillation. When patients have never had atrial fibrillation before, this is called 'new-onset atrial fibrillation'. We do not know how new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated in an intensive care unit affects heart rate and blood pressure, what the best treatments are or how treatments affect how people recover. METHODS: We looked at studies of new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments in intensive care units to see if some treatments have been shown to work better. We used a national database to see what happens to intensive care unit patients in the UK who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation. We also used two databases from intensive care units in the UK and the USA to see how many patients in the intensive care units have new-onset atrial fibrillation, how atrial fibrillation affects heart rate and blood pressure, and whether or not some treatments work better than others. RESULTS: Between 6% and 11% of intensive care unit patients develop new-onset atrial fibrillation. These patients are more likely to die in hospital and in the first 90 days after discharge than those who do not. They are also more likely to be readmitted to hospital with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure. The evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments is limited, but suggests that beta-blockers or amiodarone may work better than calcium channel blockers or digoxin. CONCLUSIONS: New-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units is common, and outcomes are worse in patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation than in those who do not. Our research shows that some new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments work better than others. This information will help us to plan a study to improve health after new-onset atrial fibrillation.

Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care creatinine testing to assess kidney function prior to contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) imaging in a non-emergency outpatient setting often lack a recent estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate measurement. This may lead to inefficiencies in the CECT pathway. The use of point-of-care (POC) creatinine tests to evaluate kidney function in these patients may provide a safe and cost-effective alternative to current practice, as these can provide results within the same CECT appointment. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to characterise the diagnostic pathway and patient management (e.g., intravenous hydration) and link these to adverse renal events associated with intravenous contrast media. Twelve diagnostic strategies including three POC devices (i-STAT, ABL800 Flex and StatSensor), risk factor screening and laboratory testing were compared with current practice. The diagnostic accuracy of POC devices was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis; relevant literature sources and databases informed other parameters. The cost-effective strategy from a health care perspective was identified based on highest net health benefit (NHB) which were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at £20,000/QALY. RESULTS: The cost-effective strategy, with a NHB of 9.98 QALYs and a probability of being cost-effective of 79.3%, was identified in our analysis to be a testing sequence involving screening all individuals for risk factors, POC testing (with i-STAT) on those screening positive, and performing a confirmatory laboratory test for individuals with a positive POC result. The incremental NHB of this strategy compared to current practice, confirmatory laboratory test, is 0.004 QALYs. Results were generally robust to scenario analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A testing sequence combining a risk factor questionnaire, POC test and confirmatory laboratory testing appears to be cost-effective compared to current practice. The cost-effectiveness of POC testing appears to be driven by reduced delays within the CECT pathway. The contribution of intravenous contrast media to acute kidney injury, and the benefits and harms of intravenous hydration remain uncertain.

Integrated in silico and experimental assessment of disease relevance of PCDH19 missense variants.

PCDH19 is a nonclustered protocadherin molecule involved in axon bundling, synapse function, and transcriptional coregulation. Pathogenic variants in PCDH19 cause infantile-onset epilepsy known as PCDH19-clustering epilepsy or PCDH19-CE. Recent advances in DNA-sequencing technologies have led to a significant increase in the number of reported PCDH19-CE variants, many of uncertain significance. We aimed to determine the best approaches for assessing the disease relevance of missense variants in PCDH19. The application of the American College of Medical Genetics and Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines was only 50% accurate. Using a training set of 322 known benign or pathogenic missense variants, we identified MutPred2, MutationAssessor, and GPP as the best performing in silico tools. We generated a protein structural model of the extracellular domain and assessed 24 missense variants. We also assessed 24 variants using an in vitro reporter assay. A combination of these tools was 93% accurate in assessing known pathogenic and benign PCDH19 variants. We increased the accuracy of the ACMG-AMP classification of 45 PCDH19 variants from 50% to 94%, using these tools. In summary, we have developed a robust toolbox for the assessment of PCDH19 variant pathogenicity to improve the accuracy of PCDH19-CE variant classification.

Point-of-care creatinine tests to assess kidney function for outpatients requiring contrast-enhanced CT imaging: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with low estimated glomerular filtration rates may be at higher risk of post-contrast acute kidney injury following contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging. Point-of-care devices allow rapid measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rates for patients referred without a recent estimated glomerular filtration rate result. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care creatinine tests for outpatients without a recent estimated glomerular filtration rate measurement who need contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging. METHODS: Three systematic reviews of test accuracy, implementation and clinical outcomes, and economic analyses were carried out. Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to November 2018. Studies comparing the accuracy of point-of-care creatinine tests with laboratory reference tests to assess kidney function in adults in a non-emergency setting and studies reporting implementation and clinical outcomes were included. Risk of bias of diagnostic accuracy studies was assessed using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Probabilities of individuals having their estimated glomerular filtration rates correctly classified were estimated within a Bayesian framework and pooled using a fixed-effects model. A de novo probabilistic decision tree cohort model was developed to characterise the decision problem from an NHS and a Personal Social Services perspective. A range of alternative point-of-care testing approaches were considered. Scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included in the clinical reviews. Twelve studies reported diagnostic accuracy for estimated glomerular filtration rates; half were rated as being at low risk of bias, but there were applicability concerns for most. i-STAT (Abbott Point of Care, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA) and ABL (Radiometer Ltd, Crawley, UK) devices had higher probabilities of correctly classifying individuals in the same estimated glomerular filtration rate categories as the reference laboratory test than StatSensor® devices (Nova Biomedical, Runcorn, UK). There was limited evidence for epoc® (Siemens Healthineers AG, Erlangen, Germany) and Piccolo Xpress® (Abaxis, Inc., Union City, CA, USA) devices and no studies of DRI-CHEM NX 500 (Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The review of implementation and clinical outcomes included six studies showing practice variation in the management decisions when a point-of-care device indicated an abnormal estimated glomerular filtration rate. The review of cost-effectiveness evidence identified no relevant studies. The de novo decision model that was developed included a total of 14 strategies. Owing to limited data, the model included only i-STAT, ABL800 FLEX and StatSensor. In the base-case analysis, the cost-effective strategy appeared to be a three-step testing sequence involving initially screening all individuals for risk factors, point-of-care testing for those individuals with at least one risk factor, and including a final confirmatory laboratory test for individuals with a point-of-care-positive test result. Within this testing approach, the specific point-of-care device with the highest net benefit was i-STAT, although differences in net benefit with StatSensor were very small. LIMITATIONS: There was insufficient evidence for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2, and on the full potential health impact of delayed or rescheduled computed tomography scans or the use of alternative imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: A three-step testing sequence combining a risk factor questionnaire with a point-of-care test and confirmatory laboratory testing appears to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with current practice. The risk of contrast causing acute kidney injury to patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2 is uncertain. Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care testing appears largely driven by the potential of point-of-care tests to minimise delays within the current computed tomography pathway. FUTURE WORK: Studies evaluating the impact of risk-stratifying questionnaires on workflow outcomes in computed tomography patients without recent estimated glomerular filtration rate results are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018115818. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Before computed tomography scans are done, a contrast agent is usually needed to improve the visibility of internal body structures. After receiving a contrast agent (through a vein), some patients' kidneys may be affected, especially if their kidneys already do not work well. A blood test can identify these patients before a computed tomography scan, to reduce the risk of kidney harm. The blood test measures creatinine, which is a marker of how well the kidneys work. Before a contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan, some patients have a recent creatinine result from an earlier blood test. Blood tests are normally done in a central laboratory, and usually take at least 1 hour. Other patients do not have a recent creatinine result, so their computed tomography scan may be delayed or rearranged. Sometimes, to avoid risking kidney harm, patients may have scans without contrast. 'Point-of-care' (handheld, tabletop or portable) devices can quickly measure creatinine (usually in patients with risk factors), often from a finger-prick blood sample. Many point-of-care devices are available but they may not be as exact as laboratory tests, so their benefit is unclear. This study reviewed all available evidence on the benefits and harms of point-of-care creatinine tests before computed tomography scans and assessed whether or not they are a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The study found that some devices [i.e. i-STAT (Abbott Point of Care, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA) and ABL (Radiometer Ltd, Crawley, UK)] were more accurate than others [i.e. StatSensor^® (Nova Biomedical, Runcorn, UK)]. There was insufficient evidence for other devices. The study found that, for outpatients, doing a point-of-care test in patients who are at a higher risk of kidney harm (according to a questionnaire) and then confirming this with a laboratory test appeared to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The study found that the risk of kidney harm as a result of contrast agents appears very low. The main benefit of point-of-care testing may be to reduce needless delays or rearranged computed tomography scan appointments.

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice. POPULATION: All patients with PLP. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phantom limb pain and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies. LIMITATION: There was a lack of robust research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP. FUTURE WORK: Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Treatment of extravasation injuries in infants and young children: a scoping review and survey.

BACKGROUND: Extravasation injuries are caused by unintended leakages of fluids or medicines from intravenous lines, but there is no consensus on the best treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To identify which treatments may be best for treating extravasation injuries in infants and young children. DESIGN: Scoping review and survey of practice. POPULATION: Children aged < 18 years with extravasation injuries and NHS staff who treat children with extravasation injuries. INTERVENTIONS: Any treatment for extravasation injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wound healing time, infection, pain, scarring, functional impairment, requirement for surgery. DATA SOURCES: Twelve database searches were carried out in February 2017 without date restrictions, including MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE). METHODS: Scoping review - studies were screened in duplicate. Data were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies were grouped by design, and then by intervention, with details summarised narratively and in tables. The survey questionnaire was distributed to NHS staff at neonatal units, paediatric intensive care units and principal oncology/haematology units. Summary results were presented narratively and in tables and figures. RESULTS: The evidence identified in the scoping review mostly comprised small, retrospective, uncontrolled group studies or case reports. The studies covered a wide range of interventions including conservative management approaches, saline flush-out techniques (with or without prior hyaluronidase), hyaluronidase (without flush-out), artificial skin treatments, debridement and plastic surgery. Few studies graded injury severity and the results sections and outcomes reported in most studies were limited. There was heterogeneity across study populations in age, types of infusate, injury severity, location of injury and the time gaps between injury identification and subsequent treatment. Some of the better evidence related to studies of flush-out techniques. The NHS survey yielded 63 responses from hospital units across the UK. Results indicated that, although most units had a written protocol or guideline for treating extravasation injuries, only one-third of documents included a staging system for grading injury severity. In neonatal units, parenteral nutrition caused most extravasation injuries. In principal oncology/haematology units, most injuries were due to vesicant chemotherapies. The most frequently used interventions were elevation of the affected area and analgesics. Warm or cold compresses were rarely used. Saline flush-out treatments, either with or without hyaluronidase, were regularly used in about half of all neonatal units. Most responders thought a randomised controlled trial might be a viable future research design, though opinions varied greatly by setting. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of good-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty about which treatments are most promising, particularly with respect to treating earlier-stage injuries. Saline flush-out techniques and conservative management approaches are commonly used and may be suitable for evaluation in trials. FUTURE WORK: Conventional randomised trials may be difficult to perform, although a randomised registry trial may be an appropriate alternative. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis following inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Several biologic therapies are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who have had an inadequate response to two or more synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). NICE does not specifically recommend switching from one biologic to another, and only ustekinumab (UST; STELARA®, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA) is recommended after anti-tumour necrosis factor failure. Secukinumab (SEC; COSENTYX®, Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and certolizumab pegol (CZP; CIMZIA®, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) have not previously been appraised by NICE. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP and SEC for treating active PsA in adults in whom DMARDs have been inadequately effective. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 2016 for CZP and SEC studies; update searches were run to identify new comparator studies. REVIEW METHODS: Clinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to investigate the relative efficacy of SEC and CZP compared with comparator therapies. A de novo model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEC and CZP compared with the other relevant comparators. The model was specified for three subpopulations, in accordance with the NICE scope (patients who have taken one prior DMARD, patients who have taken two or more prior DMARDs and biologic-experienced patients). The models were further classified according to the level of concomitant psoriasis. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible RCTs were included in the systematic review of short-term efficacy. Most studies were well conducted and were rated as being at low risk of bias. Trials of SEC and CZP demonstrated clinically important efficacy in all key clinical outcomes. At 3 months, patients taking 150 mg of SEC [relative risk (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 15.43] or CZP (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.56) were more likely to be responders than patients taking placebo. The NMA results for the biologic-naive subpopulations indicated that the effectiveness of SEC and CZP relative to other biologics and each other was uncertain. Limited data were available for the biologic-experienced subpopulation. Longer-term evidence suggested that these newer biologics reduced disease progression, with the benefits being similar to those seen for older biologics. The de novo model generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three subpopulations and three psoriasis subgroups. In subpopulation 1 (biologic-naive patients who had taken one prior DMARD), CZP was the optimal treatment in the moderate-severe psoriasis subgroup and 150 mg of SEC was optimal in the subgroups of patients with mild-moderate psoriasis or no concomitant psoriasis. In subpopulation 2 (biologic-naive patients who had taken two or more prior DMARDs), etanercept (ETN; ENBREL®, Pfizer Inc., New York City, NY, USA) is likely to be the optimal treatment in all subgroups. The ICERs for SEC and CZP versus best supportive care are in the region of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In subpopulation 3 (biologic-experienced patients or patients in whom biologics are contraindicated), UST is likely to be the optimal treatment (ICERs are in the region of £21,000-27,000 per QALY). The optimal treatment in subpopulation 2 was sensitive to the choice of evidence synthesis model. In subpopulations 2 and 3, results were sensitive to the algorithm for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index costs. The optimal treatment is not sensitive to the use of biosimilar prices for ETN and infliximab (REMICADE®, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). CONCLUSIONS: SEC and CZP may be an effective use of NHS resources, depending on the subpopulation and subgroup of psoriasis severity. There are a number of limitations to this assessment, driven mainly by data availability. FUTURE WORK: Trials are needed to inform effectiveness of biologics in biologic-experienced populations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033357. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Methodological challenges for the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in the context of accelerated regulatory approval: an overview.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory authorities are approving innovative therapies with limited evidence. Although this level of data is sufficient for the regulator to establish an acceptable risk-benefit balance, it is problematic for downstream health technology assessment, where assessment of cost-effectiveness requires reliable estimates of effectiveness relative to existing clinical practice. Some key issues associated with a limited evidence base include using data, from nonrandomized studies, from small single-arm trials, or from single-center trials; and using surrogate end points. METHODS: We examined these methodological challenges through a pragmatic review of the available literature. RESULTS: Methods to adjust nonrandomized studies for confounding are imperfect. The relative treatment effect generated from single-arm trials is uncertain and may be optimistic. Single-center trial results may not be generalizable. Surrogate end points, on average, overestimate treatment effects. Current methods for analyzing such data are limited, and effectiveness claims based on these suboptimal forms of evidence are likely to be subject to significant uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Assessments of cost-effectiveness, based on the modeling of such data, are likely to be subject to considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty must not be underestimated by decision makers: methods for its quantification are required and schemes to protect payers from the cost of uncertainty should be implemented.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value. METHODS: Data from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16). RESULTS: When all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20-30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS: Using the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY.

The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) commissioned a 'mock technology appraisal' to assess whether changes to its methods and processes are needed. This report presents the findings of independent research commissioned to inform this appraisal and the deliberations of a panel convened by NICE to evaluate the mock appraisal. METHODS: Our research included reviews to identify issues, analysis methods and conceptual differences and the relevance of alternative decision frameworks, alongside the development of an exemplar case study of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. RESULTS: An assessment of previous evaluations of regenerative medicines found that, although there were a number of evidential challenges, none was unique to regenerative medicines or was beyond the scope of existing methods used to conceptualise decision uncertainty. Regarding the clinical evidence for regenerative medicines, the issues were those associated with a limited evidence base but were not unique to regenerative medicines: small non-randomised studies, high variation in response and the intervention subject to continuing development. The relative treatment effects generated from single-arm trials are likely to be optimistic unless it is certain that the historical data have accurately estimated the efficacy of the control agent. Pivotal trials may use surrogate end points, which, on average, overestimate treatment effects. To reduce overall uncertainty, multivariate meta-analysis of all available data should be considered. Incorporating indirectly relevant but more reliable (more mature) data into the analysis can also be considered; such data may become available as a result of the evolving regulatory pathways being developed by the European Medicines Agency. For the exemplar case of CAR T-cell therapy, target product profiles (TPPs) were developed, which considered the 'curative' and 'bridging to stem-cell transplantation' treatment approaches separately. Within each TPP, three 'hypothetical' evidence sets (minimum, intermediate and mature) were generated to simulate the impact of alternative levels of precision and maturity in the clinical evidence. Subsequent assessments of cost-effectiveness were undertaken, employing the existing NICE reference case alongside additional analyses suggested within alternative frameworks. The additional exploratory analyses were undertaken to demonstrate how assessments of cost-effectiveness and uncertainty could be impacted by alternative managed entry agreements (MEAs), including price discounts, performance-related schemes and technology leasing. The panel deliberated on the range of TPPs, evidence sets and MEAs, commenting on the likely recommendations for each scenario. The panel discussed the challenges associated with the exemplar and regenerative medicines more broadly, focusing on the need for a robust quantification of the level of uncertainty in the cost-effective estimates and the potential value of MEAs in limiting the exposure of the NHS to high upfront costs and loss associated with a wrong decision. CONCLUSIONS: It is to be expected that there will be a significant level of uncertainty in determining the clinical effectiveness of regenerative medicines and their long-term costs and benefits, but the existing methods available to estimate the implications of this uncertainty are sufficient. The use of risk sharing and MEAs between the NHS and manufacturers of regenerative medicines should be investigated further. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?

BACKGROUND: Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future. DISCUSSION: Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under "Hospital Exemption" from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Apremilast for Treating Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Critique of the Evidence.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of apremilast was invited to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for whom disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been inadequately effective, not tolerated or contraindicated. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the ERG review of the company's submission, the ERG report and submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (December 2015). In the company's initial submission, the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,683 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the sequence including apremilast (positioned before tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α inhibitors) versus a comparator sequence without apremilast. However, the ERG considered that the base-case sequence proposed by the company represented a limited set of potentially relevant treatment sequences and positions for apremilast. The company's base-case results were therefore not a sufficient basis to inform the most efficient use and position of apremilast. The exploratory ERG analyses indicated that apremilast is more effective (i.e. produces higher health gains) when positioned after TNF-α inhibitor therapies. Furthermore, assumptions made regarding a potential beneficial effect of apremilast on long-term Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression, which cannot be substantiated, have a very significant impact on results. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), when taking into account their preferred assumptions for HAQ progression for patients on treatment with apremilast, placebo response and monitoring costs for apremilast, concluded that the addition of apremilast resulted in cost savings but also a QALY loss. These cost savings were not high enough to compensate for the clinical effectiveness that would be lost. The AC thus decided that apremilast alone or in combination with DMARD therapy is not recommended for treating adults with active PsA that has not responded to prior DMARD therapy, or where such therapy is not tolerated.

Tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are typically used when the inflammatory rheumatologic diseases ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-AxSpA) have not responded adequately to conventional therapy. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends treatment with adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab in adults with active (severe) AS only if certain criteria are fulfilled but it does not recommend infliximab for AS. Anti-TNFs for patients with nr-AxSpA have not previously been appraised by NICE. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness within the NHS of adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab, within their licensed indications, for the treatment of severe active AS or severe nr-AxSpA (but with objective signs of inflammation). DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES: Fifteen databases were searched for relevant studies in July 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Clinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Results from other studies were summarised narratively. Only full economic evaluations that compared two or more options and considered both costs and consequences were included in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. The differences in the approaches and assumptions used across the studies, and also those in the manufacturer's submissions, were examined in order to explain any discrepancies in the findings and to identify key areas of uncertainty. A de novo decision model was developed with a generalised framework for evidence synthesis that pooled change in disease activity (BASDAI and BASDAI 50) and simultaneously synthesised information on function (BASFI) to determine the long-term quality-adjusted life-year and cost burden of the disease in the economic model. The decision model was developed in accordance with the NICE reference case. The model has a lifetime horizon (60 years) and considers costs from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services. Health effects were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: In total, 28 eligible RCTs were identified and 26 were placebo controlled (mostly up to 12 weeks); 17 extended into open-label active treatment-only phases. Most RCTs were judged to have a low risk of bias overall. In both AS and nr-AxSpA populations, anti-TNFs produced clinically important benefits to patients in terms of improving function and reducing disease activity; for AS, the relative risks for ASAS 40 ranged from 2.53 to 3.42. The efficacy estimates were consistently slightly smaller for nr-AxSpA than for AS. Statistical (and clinical) heterogeneity was more apparent in the nr-AxSpA analyses than in the AS analyses; both the reliability of the nr-AxSpA meta-analysis results and their true relevance to patients seen in clinical practice are questionable. In AS, anti-TNFs are approximately equally effective. Effectiveness appears to be maintained over time, with around 50% of patients still responding at 2 years. Evidence for an effect of anti-TNFs delaying disease progression was limited; results from ongoing long-term studies should help to clarify this issue. Sequential treatment with anti-TNFs can be worthwhile but the drug survival response rates and benefits are reduced with second and third anti-TNFs. The de novo model, which addressed many of the issues of earlier evaluations, generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from £19,240 to £66,529 depending on anti-TNF and modelling assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: In both AS and nr-AxSpA populations anti-TNFs are clinically effective, although more so in AS than in nr-AxSpA. Anti-TNFs may be an effective use of NHS resources depending on which assumptions are considered appropriate. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Randomised trials are needed to identify the nr-AxSpA population who will benefit the most from anti-TNFs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010182. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Quality assessment of comparative diagnostic accuracy studies: our experience using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool.

Assessing the quality of included studies is a vital step in undertaking a systematic review. The recently revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool (QUADAS-2), which is the only validated quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, does not include specific criteria for assessing comparative studies. As part of an assessment that included comparative diagnostic accuracy studies, we used a modified version of QUADAS-2 to assess study quality. We modified QUADAS-2 by duplicating questions relating to the index test, to assess the relevant potential sources of bias for both the index test and comparator test. We also added review-specific questions. We have presented our modified version of QUADAS-2 and outlined some key issues for consideration when assessing the quality of comparative diagnostic accuracy studies, to help guide other systematic reviewers conducting comparative diagnostic reviews. Until QUADAS is updated to incorporate assessment of comparative studies, QUADAS-2 can be used, although modification and careful thought is required. It is important to reflect upon whether aspects of study design and methodology favour one of the tests over another.

The use and reporting of WOMAC in the assessment of the benefit of physical therapies for the pain of osteoarthritis of the knee: findings from a systematic review of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: For the purposes of meta-analysis and network meta-analysis, the use of standard outcome measures is ideal. In OA research, the WOMAC was developed as an OA-specific measure of disability. It includes a pain subscale. In 1994 a consensus meeting recommended the use of WOMAC as a primary measure of efficacy in OA. In the context of a review of the efficacy of physical interventions for the relief of the pain of OA of the knee, we investigated the use of WOMAC. METHODS: A systematic review (December 2009-January 2010) identified trials that used the WOMAC outcome. These were investigated for correct use and clear reporting of the WOMAC pain subscale and the WOMAC index. RESULTS: The WOMAC pain subscale was used in 45% of the 134 trials. Reporting of the exact method of administering the WOMAC pain subscale was poor in many cases: in 53% of trials the reporting of the type of WOMAC scale used was inadequate; the score range was reported ambiguously in 38% of trials, with a further 10% being completely unclear. Similar less than optimal reporting of the WOMAC index was found. CONCLUSION: Poor reporting of both the WOMAC pain subscale and the WOMAC index resulted in significant uncertainty in the interpretation of the results of individual trials and limited their contribution to evidence synthesis. Improved adherence with the standard use of the WOMAC scoring system, with clear reporting of it in trials of OA of the knee should be encouraged.