Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.

Sustaining knowledge translation interventions for chronic disease management in older adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective. METHODS: For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. DISCUSSION: Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Effectiveness of paediatric asthma clinical pathways: a narrative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of clinical pathways (CPs) for paediatric asthma on length of hospital stay, additional visits due to asthma exacerbations, hospital cost, manpower and workload required for implementing CPs. METHODS: Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: children (≦18 years) with asthma, hospital or emergency department based, and study designs were (1) randomised controlled trial, (2) controlled clinical trial or (3) controlled before and after study. Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved disagreement by discussion between authors. Due to an insufficient number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, we conducted a narrative systematic review with forest plots but did not pool results. RESULTS: About 3155 relevant articles were identified through a literature search, 628 were duplicates removed, 2037 were excluded based on review of titles and abstracts and 117 were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria. Seven studies involving 2600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Using asthma CPs may decrease the length of hospital stay; however, CPs did not appear to reduce additional visits due to asthma exacerbations or reduce hospital costs. No eligible studies were found that quantified the manpower and workload for implementing CPs. CONCLUSIONS: Current studies suggest CPs may reduce the length of hospital stay, but insufficient evidence is available on total costs or readmissions to justify extensive uptake of asthma CPs in paediatric inpatient care. Higher quality, large randomised controlled trials are required that measure costs and a wider range of outcomes.

New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of proposed new treatments that are 'successful' is of ethical, scientific, and public importance. We investigated how often new, experimental treatments evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are superior to established treatments. OBJECTIVES: Our main question was: "On average how often are new treatments more effective, equally effective or less effective than established treatments?" Additionally, we wanted to explain the observed results, i.e. whether the observed distribution of outcomes is consistent with the 'uncertainty requirement' for enrollment in RCTs. We also investigated the effect of choice of comparator (active versus no treatment/placebo) on the observed results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) 2010, Issue 1 in The Cochrane Library (searched 31 March 2010); MEDLINE Ovid 1950 to March Week 2 2010 (searched 24 March 2010); and EMBASE Ovid 1980 to 2010 Week 11 (searched 24 March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohorts of studies were eligible for the analysis if they met all of the following criteria: (i) consecutive series of RCTs, (ii) registered at or before study onset, and (iii) compared new against established treatments in humans. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RCTs from four cohorts of RCTs met all inclusion criteria and provided data from 743 RCTs involving 297,744 patients. All four cohorts consisted of publicly funded trials. Two cohorts involved evaluations of new treatments in cancer, one in neurological disorders, and one for mixed types of diseases. We employed kernel density estimation, meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess the probability of new treatments being superior to established treatments in their effect on primary outcomes and overall survival. MAIN RESULTS: The distribution of effects seen was generally symmetrical in the size of difference between new versus established treatments. Meta-analytic pooling indicated that, on average, new treatments were slightly more favorable both in terms of their effect on reducing the primary outcomes (hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) and improving overall survival (HR 0.95, 99% CI 0.92 to 0.98). No heterogeneity was observed in the analysis based on primary outcomes or overall survival (I(2) = 0%). Kernel density analysis was consistent with the meta-analysis, but showed a fairly symmetrical distribution of new versus established treatments indicating unpredictability in the results. This was consistent with the interpretation that new treatments are only slightly superior to established treatments when tested in RCTs. Additionally, meta-regression demonstrated that results have remained stable over time and that the success rate of new treatments has not changed over the last half century of clinical trials. The results were not significantly affected by the choice of comparator (active versus placebo/no therapy). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Society can expect that slightly more than half of new experimental treatments will prove to be better than established treatments when tested in RCTs, but few will be substantially better. This is an important finding for patients (as they contemplate participation in RCTs), researchers (as they plan design of the new trials), and funders (as they assess the 'return on investment'). Although we provide the current best evidence on the question of expected 'success rate' of new versus established treatments consistent with a priori theoretical predictions reflective of 'uncertainty or equipoise hypothesis', it should be noted that our sample represents less than 1% of all available randomized trials; therefore, one should exercise the appropriate caution in interpretation of our findings. In addition, our conclusion applies to publicly funded trials only, as we did not include studies funded by commercial sponsors in our analysis.

Improving the effectiveness of clinical medicine: the need for better science.

Effective clinical practice is predicated on valid and relevant clinical science - a commodity in increasingly short supply. The pre-eminent place of clinical research has become tainted by methodological shortcomings, commercial influences and neglect of the needs of patients and clinicians. Researchers need to be more proactive in evaluating clinical interventions in terms of patient-important benefit, wide applicability and comparative effectiveness, and in adopting study designs and reporting standards that ensure accurate and transparent research outputs. Funders of research need to be more supportive of applied clinical research that rigorously evaluates effectiveness of new treatments and synthesis existing knowledge into clinically useful systematic reviews. Several strategies for improving the state of the science are possible but their implementation requires collective action of all those undertaking and reporting clinical research.

Cost-effectiveness of lowering blood pressure with a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide in type 2 diabetes mellitus: an ADVANCE trial-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of routine administration, irrespective of blood pressure (BP), of a fixed-dose combination of perindopril and indapamide to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis within the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial, an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 11,140 participants with type 2 diabetes randomly allocated to receive perindopril plus indapamide (4 mg-1.25 mg/day) or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality-of-life measured by the EuroQol-5D, resource utilisation, and cost-effectiveness (cost per death averted at 4.3 years' average follow-up, and estimated cost per life-year gained, by extrapolation). RESULTS: The mean health-related quality-of-life score of survivors was 0.80 (on a 0-1 scale [death to full health]), with no difference between treatment groups. Active treatment reduced hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation by 5%. For the Australian participants, perindopril-indapamide cost A$1368 per patient during the trial period, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by A$410 and other medication costs (mainly other BP-lowering drugs) by A$332. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality for the active treatment group was 1.1%, giving a cost per life saved of A$49,200. Lifetime extrapolation gave an estimated cost per life-year saved of A$10,040 (discounted at 5% per year). CONCLUSION: The combination of perindopril and indapamide in patients with type 2 diabetes appears to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: United States National Library of Medicine NCT00145925.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. DESIGN: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. PATIENTS AND SETTING: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. RESULTS: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107 730 (95% CI, $68 626-$209 881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.

Benefits, harms and costs of screening mammography in women 70 years and over: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the (i) benefits, (ii) harms and (iii) costs of continuing mammographic screening for women 70 years and over. DATA SOURCES AND SYNTHESIS: (i) We conducted a MEDLINE search (1966 - July 2000) for decision-analytic models estimating life-expectancy gains from screening in older women. The five studies meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using standard criteria. We estimated relative benefit from each model's estimate of effectiveness of screening in older women relative to that in women aged 50-69 years using the same model. (ii) With data from BreastScreen Queensland, we constructed balance sheets of the consequences of screening for women in 10-year age groups (40-49 to 80-89 years), and (iii) we used a validated model to estimate the marginal cost-effectiveness of extending screening to women 70 years and over. RESULTS: For women aged 70-79 years, the relative benefit was estimated as 40%-72%, and 18%-62% with adjustment for the impact of screening on quality of life. For women over 80 years the relative benefit was about a third, and with quality-of-life adjustment only 14%, that in women aged 50-69 years. (ii) Of 10,000 Australian women participating in ongoing screening, about 400 are recalled for further testing, and, depending on age, about 70-112 undergo biopsy and about 19-80 cancers are detected. (iii) Cost-effectiveness estimates for extending the upper age limit for mammographic screening from 69 to 79 years range from $8119 to $27 751 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, which compares favourably with extending screening to women aged 40-49 years (estimated at between $24,000 and $65,000 per life-year saved). CONCLUSIONS: Women 70 years and over, in consultation with their healthcare providers, may want to decide for themselves whether to continue mammographic screening. Decision-support materials are needed for women in this age group.