Is primary trabeculectomy cost-effective for patients with advanced primary open angle glaucoma? Results from the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study economic model.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Advanced primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is a lifelong condition. The aim of this study is to compare medical treatment against trabeculectomy for patients presenting with advanced POAG using an economic evaluation decision model. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare the two treatments, medical treatment versus trabeculectomy for the management of advanced POAG, in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The uncertainty surrounding the model findings was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and deterministic analysis. Data for the model came from Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study supplemented with data from the literature. The main outcomes of the model presented in terms of Incremental costs and QALYs based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index-3 and a Glaucoma Utility Index. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis (lifetime horizon and EQ-5D-5L measure), participants receiving trabeculectomy had on average, an additional cost of £2687, an additional 0.28 QALYs and an incremental cost per QALY of £9679 compared with medical treatment. There was a 73% likelihood of trabeculectomy being considered cost-effective when society was willing to pay £20 000 for a QALY. Over shorter time horizons, the incremental cost per QALY gained from trabeculectomy compared with medical treatment was higher (47 663) for a 2-year time horizon. Our results are robust to changes in the key assumptions and input parameters values. CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with advanced POAG, trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective over a patient's lifetime compared with medical treatment.

Valuing selected WAItE health states using the Time Trade-Off methodology: findings from an online interviewer-assisted remote survey.

PURPOSE: The Weight-Specific Adolescent Instrument for Economic Evaluation (WAItE) is a physical weight-specific patient reported outcome measure for use in adolescence. The purpose of this study was to use the Time Trade-Off (TTO) methodology, administered using an online interviewer-assisted remote survey, to obtain utility values for several health states from the WAItE descriptive system from a sample of the UK adult general population. METHODS: The adult sample was gathered using a market research company and a sample of local residents. All participants completed the same interviewer-assisted remote survey, which included rating WAItE states of varying impairment using the TTO. RESULTS: 42 adults completed the survey. Utility values were gathered for four health states, ranging from low impairment to the most severe health from the WAItE descriptive system (the Pits state). Consistent orderings of the WAItE health states were observed; the health state with the lowest level of impairment was valued highest and the Pits state was valued lowest. Several respondents (n = 7, 17%) considered the Pits state to be worse than death; however, the mean value of this health state was 0.23. CONCLUSIONS: The utility value of the Pits state relative to death generated from this study will be used to anchor latent values for WAItE health states generated from a Discrete Choice Experiment onto the 0 = death, 1 = full health Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) scale as part of a valuation study for the WAItE in the UK population. This study also provides further evidence that interviewer-assisted digital studies are feasible for collecting TTO data.

Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of a woman's uterus, bladder, or rectum into the vagina. It affects 50% of women over 50 years old who have given birth to at least one child, and recognised risk factors are older age, higher number of births, and higher body mass index. This review assesses the effects of oestrogen therapy, alone or in combination with other treatments, on POP in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of local and systemic oestrogen therapy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (up to 20 June 2022), which includes CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, multi-arm RCTs, and cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effects of oestrogen therapy (alone or in combination with other treatments) versus placebo, no treatment, or other interventions in postmenopausal women with any grade of POP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using prespecified outcome measures and a piloted extraction form. The same review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Had data allowed, we would have created summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies including a total of 1002 women. In general, studies were at high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel, and there were also some concerns about selective reporting. Owing to insufficient data for the outcomes of interest, we were unable to perform our planned subgroup analyses (systemic versus topical oestrogen, parous versus nulliparous women, women with versus without a uterus). No studies assessed the effects of oestrogen therapy alone versus no treatment, placebo, pelvic floor muscle training, devices such as vaginal pessaries, or surgery. However, we did identify three studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone and 11 studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with surgery versus surgery alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence from RCTs to draw any solid conclusions on the benefits or harms of oestrogen therapy for managing POP symptoms in postmenopausal women. Topical oestrogen in conjunction with pessaries was associated with fewer adverse vaginal events compared with pessaries alone, and topical oestrogen in conjunction with surgery was associated with reduced postoperative urinary tract infections compared with surgery alone; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the studies that contributed data varied substantially in their design. There is a need for larger studies on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oestrogen therapy, used alone or in conjunction with pelvic floor muscle training, vaginal pessaries, or surgery, for the management of POP. These studies should measure outcomes in the medium and long term.

Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research.

BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews have established methods for identifying and critically appraising empirical evidence in health. In addition to evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of interventions, the resource implications of such interventions can have a huge impact on a decision maker's ability to adopt and implement them. In this paper, we present examples of the three approaches to include economic evidence in Cochrane reviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Handbook presents three different methods of integrating economic evidence into reviews: the Brief Economic Commentary (BEC), the Integrated Full Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations (IFSREE) and using an Economic Decision Model. Using the examples from three different systematic reviews in the field of brain cancer, we utilised each method to address three different research questions. A BEC was utilised in a review that evaluates the long-term side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy). An IFSREE was utilised in a review comparing different treatment strategies for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Finally, an economic model was included in a review assessing diagnostic test accuracy for tests of codeletion of chromosomal arms in people with glioma. RESULTS: The BEC mirrored the results of the main review and found a paucity of quality evidence with regard to the side effects of radiotherapy in those with glioma. The IFSREE identified a single economic evaluation regarding glioblastoma in the elderly, but this study had a number of methodological issues. The economic model identified a number of potentially cost-effective strategies for tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma. CONCLUSIONS: There are strengths and limitations of each approach for integrating economic evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews. The type of research question, resources available and study timeline should be considered when choosing which approach to use when integrating economic evidence.

Abemaciclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of abemaciclib (Verzenios) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in combination with Newcastle University, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarised the Company Submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS and also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. A systematic literature review identified the MonarchE trial, an ongoing, open-label, randomised, double blind trial involving 5637 people comparing abemaciclib in combination with ET versus ET alone. The trial included two cohorts that used different inclusion criteria to define high risk of recurrence. The ERG considered Cohort 1 as an adequate representation of this population and the AC concluded that Cohort 1 was generalisable to National Health Service clinical practice. Trial results showed improvements in invasive disease-free survival for the abemaciclib arm, which was considered an appropriate surrogate outcome. The ERG believed that the modelling structure presented in the de novo economic model by the company was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Areas of uncertainty included the extrapolation of long-term survival curves, the duration of treatment effect and treatment waning, and the proportion of patients who receive other CDK4/6 treatments for metastatic disease after receiving abemaciclib. ICER estimates were £9164 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the company's base-case and £17,810 for the ERG's base-case. NICE recommended abemaciclib with ET as an option for the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

Cost-effectiveness of primary surgical versus primary medical management in the treatment of patients presenting with advanced glaucoma.

SYNOPSIS: Advanced glaucoma is associated with sight loss. This within-trial economic evaluation compares medical and surgical management strategies. At 2 years, medication appears more cost-effective though longitudinal outcomes are an important subject in future research. BACKGROUND/AIMS: Open angle glaucoma (OAG) is a progressive optic neuropathy. Approximately 25% of newly diagnosed patients with OAG present with advanced disease in at least one eye. The vision loss associated with OAG can lead to significant impacts on vision, quality of life and health care resources. The Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study is a randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of primary surgical and medical management for newly diagnosed advanced patients with OAG. An economic evaluation was carried out to understand the costs and benefits of each strategy. METHODS: A cost utility analysis was carried out from a National Health Service perspective over a 2-year time horizon inclusive of patient costs. The primary outcome was patient health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3) and Glaucoma Utility Index (GUI). Results were expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Trabeculectomy was associated with higher costs and greater effect, the EQ-5D-5L results have an incremental cost per QALY of £45,456. The likelihood of surgery being cost-effective at a £20, 000, £30,000 and £50,000 QALY threshold is 0%, 12% and 56%, respectively. The results for the HUI3, GUI and inclusion of patient costs do not change the conclusions of the study. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate management strategies for those presenting with advanced glaucoma. At a 2-year time horizon, medication is the more cost-effective approach for managing glaucoma. Future research can focus on the costs and benefits of the treatments over a longer time horizon.

Diagnostic test accuracy and cost-effectiveness of tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma.

BACKGROUND: Complete deletion of both the short arm of chromosome 1 (1p) and the long arm of chromosome 19 (19q), known as 1p/19q codeletion, is a mutation that can occur in gliomas. It occurs in a type of glioma known as oligodendroglioma and its higher grade counterpart known as anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Detection of 1p/19q codeletion in gliomas is important because, together with another mutation in an enzyme known as isocitrate dehydrogenase, it is needed to make the diagnosis of an oligodendroglioma. Presence of 1p/19q codeletion also informs patient prognosis and prediction of the best drug treatment. The main two tests in use are fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) assays (also known as PCR-based short tandem repeat or microsatellite analysis). Many other tests are available. None of the tests is perfect, although PCR-based LOH is expected to have very high sensitivity. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity and cost-effectiveness of different deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-based techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status in glioma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and BIOSIS up to July 2019. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. We sought economic evaluation studies from the results of this search and using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional studies in adults with glioma or any subtype of glioma, presenting raw data or cross-tabulations of two or more DNA-based tests for 1p/19q codeletion. We also sought economic evaluations of these tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts/full texts, performed data extraction, and undertook applicability and risk of bias assessments using QUADAS-2. Meta-analyses used the hierarchical summary ROC model to estimate and compare test accuracy. We used FISH and PCR-based LOH as alternate reference standards to examine how tests compared with those in common use, and conducted a latent class analysis comparing FISH and PCR-based LOH. We constructed an economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 studies examining: PCR-based LOH, FISH, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, next-generation sequencing (NGS), comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH), array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH), multiplex-ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), real-time PCR, chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH), mass spectrometry (MS), restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, G-banding, methylation array and NanoString. Risk of bias was low for only one study; most gave us concerns about how patients were selected or about missing data. We had applicability concerns about many of the studies because only patients with specific subtypes of glioma were included. 1520 participants contributed to analyses using FISH as the reference, 1304 participants to analyses involving PCR-based LOH as the reference and 262 participants to analyses of comparisons between methods from studies not including FISH or PCR-based LOH. Most evidence was available for comparison of FISH with PCR-based LOH (15 studies, 915 participants): PCR-based LOH detected 94% of FISH-determined codeletions (95% credible interval (CrI) 83% to 98%) and FISH detected 91% of codeletions determined by PCR-based LOH (CrI 78% to 97%). Of tumours determined not to have a deletion by FISH, 94% (CrI 87% to 98%) had a deletion detected by PCR-based LOH, and of those determined not to have a deletion by PCR-based LOH, 96% (CrI 90% to 99%) had a deletion detected by FISH. The latent class analysis suggested that PCR-based LOH may be slightly more accurate than FISH. Most other techniques appeared to have high sensitivity (i.e. produced few false-negative results) for detection of 1p/19q codeletion when either FISH or PCR-based LOH was considered as the reference standard, although there was limited evidence. There was some indication of differences in specificity (false-positive rate) with some techniques. Both NGS and SNP array had high specificity when considered against FISH as the reference standard (NGS: 6 studies, 243 participants; SNP: 6 studies, 111 participants), although we rated certainty in the evidence as low or very low. NGS and SNP array also had high specificity when PCR-based LOH was considered the reference standard, although with much more uncertainty as these results were based on fewer studies (just one study with 49 participants for NGS and two studies with 33 participants for SNP array). G-banding had low sensitivity and specificity when PCR-based LOH was the reference standard. Although MS had very high sensitivity and specificity when both FISH and PCR-based LOH were considered the reference standard, these results were based on only one study with a small number of participants. Real-time PCR also showed high specificity with FISH as a reference standard, although there were only two studies including 40 participants. We found no relevant economic evaluations. Our economic model using FISH as the reference standard suggested that the resource-optimising test depends on which measure of diagnostic accuracy is most important. With FISH as the reference standard, MLPA is likely to be cost-effective if society was willing to pay GBP 1000 or less for a true positive detected. However, as the value placed on a true positive increased, CISH was most cost-effective. Findings differed when the outcome measure changed to either true negative detected or correct diagnosis. When PCR-based LOH was used as the reference standard, MLPA was likely to be cost-effective for all measures of diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold values for willingness to pay. However, as the threshold values increased, none of the tests were clearly more likely to be considered cost-effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In our review, most techniques (except G-banding) appeared to have good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma against both FISH and PCR-based LOH as a reference standard. However, we judged the certainty of the evidence low or very low for all the tests. There are possible differences in specificity, with both NGS and SNP array having high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. The economic analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies.

Teleophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease (HERMES): a Cluster Randomised Superiority Trial with a linked Diagnostic Accuracy Study-HERMES study report 1-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of demand in eye care services in the UK. With a large proportion of patients referred to Hospital Eye Services (HES) for diagnostics and disease management, the referral process results in unnecessary referrals from erroneous diagnoses and delays in access to appropriate treatment. A potential solution is a teleophthalmology digital referral pathway linking community optometry and HES. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HERMES study (Teleophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: a cluster randomised superiority trial with a linked diagnostic accuracy study) is a cluster randomised clinical trial for evaluating the effectiveness of a teleophthalmology referral pathway between community optometry and HES for retinal diseases. Nested within HERMES is a diagnostic accuracy study, which assesses the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) decision support system (DSS) for automated diagnosis and referral recommendation. A postimplementation, observational substudy, a within-trial economic evaluation and discrete choice experiment will assess the feasibility of implementation of both digital technologies within a real-life setting. Patients with a suspicion of retinal disease, undergoing eye examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans, will be recruited across 24 optometry practices in the UK. Optometry practices will be randomised to standard care or teleophthalmology. The primary outcome is the proportion of false-positive referrals (unnecessary HES visits) in the current referral pathway compared with the teleophthalmology referral pathway. OCT scans will be interpreted by the AI DSS, which provides a diagnosis and referral decision and the primary outcome for the AI diagnostic study is diagnostic accuracy of the referral decision made by the Moorfields-DeepMind AI system. Secondary outcomes relate to inappropriate referral rate, cost-effectiveness analyses and human-computer interaction (HCI) analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (REC 20/LO/1299). Findings will be reported through academic journals in ophthalmology, health services research and HCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18106677 (protocol V.1.1).

Primary trabeculectomy versus primary glaucoma eye drops for newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma: TAGS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma are at a high risk of lifetime blindness. Uncertainty exists about whether primary medical management (glaucoma eye drops) or primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) provide the best and safest patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare primary medical management with primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma presenting with advanced disease in terms of health-related quality of life, clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, parallel, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Secondary care eye services. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients presenting with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma in at least one eye, as defined by the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson classification of severe glaucoma. INTERVENTION: Primary medical treatment - escalating medical management with glaucoma eye drops. Primary trabeculectomy treatment - trabeculectomy augmented with mitomycin C. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were mean intraocular pressure; EQ-5D-5L; Health Utilities Index 3; Glaucoma Utility Index; cost and cost-effectiveness; generic, vision-specific and disease-specific health-related quality of life; clinical effectiveness; and safety. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants were recruited. The mean age of the participants was 67 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the trabeculectomy arm and 68 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the medical management arm. Over 65% of participants were male and more than 80% were white. At 24 months, the mean difference in Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score was 1.06 (95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; p = 0.383). There was no evidence of a difference between arms in the EQ-5D-5L score, the Health Utilities Index or the Glaucoma Utility Index. At 24 months, the mean intraocular pressure was 12.40 mmHg in the trabeculectomy arm and 15.07 mmHg in the medical management arm (mean difference -2.75 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -3.84 to -1.66 mmHg; p < 0.001). Fewer types of glaucoma eye drops were required in the trabeculectomy arm. LogMAR visual acuity was slightly better in the medical management arm (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.11; p = 0.006) than in the trabeculectomy arm. There was no evidence of difference in safety between the two arms. A discrete choice experiment updated the utility values for the Glaucoma Utility Index. The within-trial economic analysis found a small increase in the mean EQ-5D-5L score (0.04) and that trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective than medical management. The incremental cost of trabeculectomy per quality-adjusted life-year was £45,456. Therefore, at 2 years, surgery is unlikely to be considered cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. When extrapolated over a patient's lifetime in a model-based analysis, trabeculectomy, compared with medical treatment, was associated with higher costs (average £2687), a larger number of quality-adjusted life-years (average 0.28) and higher incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (average £9679). The likelihood of trabeculectomy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that there was no difference between treatment arms in health-related quality of life, as measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 24 months. Intraocular pressure was better controlled in the trabeculectomy arm, and this may reduce visual field progression. Modelling over the patient's lifetime suggests that trabeculectomy may be cost-effective over the range of values of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year. FUTURE WORK: Further follow-up of participants will allow us to estimate the long-term differences of disease progression, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56878850. 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. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Glaucoma is an eye condition in which the intraocular pressure is too high, causing damage to the optic nerve and loss of vision. Patients with severe vision loss at diagnosis are the most at risk of blindness in their lifetime. Lowering pressure in the eye is the only way to prevent further vision loss. Two treatments to lower pressure are commonly used: using eye drops or having an operation known as a trabeculectomy. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgery as the first treatment. However, we do not know which treatment is best for preventing vision loss or which is safest, has the best patient experience or provides the best value for money for the NHS. Therefore, surgery is not usually carried out in the first instance and patients start with eye drops instead. This study compared whether starting treatment with eye drops affected the quality of life of patients with advanced glaucoma more or less than starting treatment with trabeculectomy. We also investigated if initial treatment with surgery and initial treatment with eye drops were equally good at controlling pressure and were equally safe, and how much each treatment cost the NHS. Every patient had an equal chance of starting treatment with surgery or eye drops and they participated in the study for 2 years. We found that quality of life was similar regardless of treatment. Those starting with surgery had lower pressure and needed far fewer types of eye drops than those starting with eye drops. Thirty-nine patients in the eye drop arm required surgery to control their glaucoma. Initial treatment with eye drops was cheaper over 2 years' follow-up. Our study suggests that, over a 2-year period, having surgery in the first instance lowers intraocular pressure more than eye drops and is equally as safe as eye drops. Although eye drops are a cheaper treatment option for the NHS, if the effects of surgery on intraocular pressure are lasting, then the increased cost may be justified.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.

ANTECEDENTES: El glioblastoma (GBM) es un tumor cerebral altamente maligno que casi inevitablemente progresa o recidiva después de un tratamiento de primera línea. No hay consenso sobre el mejor o los mejores tratamientos que se pueden ofrecer a las personas que presentan progresión o recidiva de la enfermedad. A los efectos de la presente revisión, la progresión y la recidiva se consideran como una sola entidad. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad de los tratamientos adicionales para la primera y subsiguiente progresión o recidiva del glioblastoma (GBM) entre las personas que han recibido atención estándar (protocolo Stupp) para el tratamiento primario de la enfermedad, así como preparar un breve comentario económico sobre la evidencia disponible. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas de MEDLINE y Embase desde 2005 hasta diciembre de 2019 y en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL, en la Cochrane Library; Número 12, 2019). Las búsquedas económicas incluyeron la National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) hasta 2015 (cierre de la base de datos) y MEDLINE y Embase desde 2015 hasta diciembre de 2019. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y estudios comparativos no aleatorizados (no ECA) que evaluaron la efectividad de los tratamientos para el GBM progresivo/recidivante. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron personas con GBM progresivo o recidivante que habían recibido radioterapia de primera línea con temozolomida (TMZ) concomitante y adyuvante. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente seleccionaron los estudios y extrajeron los datos en un formulario de extracción de datos prediseñado. Se realizaron metanálisis en red (MAR) y los tratamientos se clasificaron según la efectividad de cada desenlace, mediante el modelo de efectos aleatorios y el software Stata (versión 15). La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 42 estudios, que comprendieron 34 ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y ocho estudios no aleatorizados (no ECA), con 5236 participantes. Se consideró que la mayoría de los ECA tuvieron bajo riesgo de sesgo y que los no ECA tuvieron alto riesgo de sesgo. Las intervenciones incluyeron quimioterapia, reoperación, reirradiación y tratamientos nuevos, ya sea utilizadas solos o en combinación. Para la primera recidiva se incluyeron 11 intervenciones en el metanálisis en red (MAR) para la supervivencia general (SG), y ocho para la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP). La lomustina (LOM; también conocida como CCNU) fue el comparador más frecuente y se utilizó como tratamiento de referencia. Ningún estudio en el MAR evaluó la cirugía, la reirradiación, la PCV (procarbazina, lomustina, vincristina), la reexposición a TMZ o el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. No fue posible realizar un MAR para una segunda o posterior recidiva debido a que los datos no fueron suficientes. Los datos de calidad de vida fueron escasos. Primera recidiva (hallazgos del MAR) La mediana de la SG en los estudios incluidos en el MAR varió entre 5,5 y 12,6 meses y la mediana de la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP) varió entre 1,5 y 4,2 meses. No se encontró evidencia de certeza alta de que los tratamientos probados fueran mejores que la lomustina. Estos tratamientos incluyeron los siguientes. Bevacizumab más lomustina: La evidencia indicó probablemente poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG entre el bevacizumab (BEV) combinado con lomustina (LOM) y la monoterapia con LOM (cociente de riesgos instantáneo [CRI] 0,91; 0,75 a 1,10; evidencia de certeza moderada), aunque BEV + LOM puede mejorar la SSP (CRI 0,57; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,44 a 0,74; evidencia de certeza baja). Monoterapia con bevacizumab: La evidencia de certeza baja indicó que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 1,22; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,76) y la SSP (CRI 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 1,38; evidencia de certeza baja) entre las monoterapias con BEV y LOM; se necesita más evidencia sobre el BEV. Regorafenib (REG): El REG puede mejorar la SG en comparación con la LOM (CRI 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,76; evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia sobre la SSP fue de certeza muy baja y se necesita más evidencia sobre el REG. Temozolomida (TMZ) más Depatux­M (ABT414): En cuanto a la SG, evidencia de certeza baja indicó que TMZ más ABT414 puede ser más efectiva que LOM (CRI 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 0,92) y puede ser más efectiva que BEV (CRI 0,54; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,89; evidencia de certeza baja). Lo anterior se puede deber solamente al componente de TMZ, y se necesita más evidencia. Fotemustina (FOM): FOM y LOM pueden tener efectos similares sobre la SG (CRI 0,89; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,57, evidencia de certeza baja). Bevacizumab e irinotecan (IRI): La evidencia sobre BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM para la SG y la SSP no está clara y probablemente hay poca o ninguna diferencia entre BEV + IRI versus la monoterapia con BEV (SG: CRI 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,70 a 1,30; evidencia de certeza moderada). Cuando los tratamientos se clasificaron según la SG, FOM se clasificó primero, BEV + LOM segundo, LOM tercero, BEV + IRI cuarto, y BEV quinto. La clasificación no tiene en cuenta la certeza de la evidencia, lo que también indica que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia entre FOM y LOM. Otros tratamientos Tres estudios evaluaron la reoperación versus ninguna reoperación, con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia, e indicaron posibles ventajas en la supervivencia con la reoperación, en el contexto de poder seleccionar candidatos adecuados para esta intervención. Un tratamiento con cannabinoides en las primeras etapas de evaluación, en combinación con TMZ, merece evaluación adicional. Segunda o posterior recidiva La evidencia limitada de tres estudios heterogéneos indicó que la radioterapia con o sin BEV puede tener un efecto beneficioso sobre la supervivencia, pero se necesita más evidencia. La evidencia no fue suficiente para establecer conclusiones sobre la mejor dosis de radioterapia. Otra evidencia indicó que puede haber poca diferencia en la supervivencia con los campos de tratamiento del tumor en comparación con la mejor opción de tratamiento del médico. No se encontró evidencia fiable sobre el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. Eventos adversos graves (EAG) La combinación BEV + LOM se asoció con un riesgo significativamente mayor de EAG que la monoterapia con LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,72 a 3,66; evidencia de certeza alta), y se clasificó peor junto con cediranib + LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 4,90; evidencia de certeza alta). LOM se clasificó como el mejor y REG como el segundo mejor. Agregar nuevos tratamientos al BEV se asoció generalmente con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves, en comparación con BEV solo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para el tratamiento de la primera recidiva del GBM en personas tratadas previamente con cirugía y quimiorradioterapia estándar, los tratamientos combinados evaluados no mejoraron la supervivencia general en comparación con la monoterapia con LOM, y a menudo se asociaron con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves. Hay evidencia limitada que indica que la reoperación con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia puede ser adecuada para candidatos seleccionados. La evidencia sobre la segunda recidiva es escasa. La reirradiación con o sin bevacizumab puede ser de valor en determinados individuos, pero se necesita más evidencia.

Primary trabeculectomy for advanced glaucoma: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (TAGS).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or primary medical treatment produces better outcomes in term of quality of life, clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 453 adults presenting with newly diagnosed advanced open angle glaucoma in at least one eye (Hodapp classification) between 3 June 2014 and 31 May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Mitomycin C augmented trabeculectomy (n=227) and escalating medical management with intraocular pressure reducing drops (n=226) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: vision specific quality of life measured with Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) at 24 months. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: general health status, glaucoma related quality of life, clinical effectiveness (intraocular pressure, visual field, visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 24 months, the mean VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medical arms were 85.4 (SD 13.8) and 84.5 (16.3), respectively (mean difference 1.06, 95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; P=0.38). Mean intraocular pressure was 12.4 (SD 4.7) mm Hg for trabeculectomy and 15.1 (4.8) mm Hg for medical management (mean difference -2.8 (-3.8 to -1.7) mm Hg; P<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 88 (39%) patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 100 (44%) in the medical management arm (relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.17; P=0.37). Serious side effects were rare. CONCLUSION: Primary trabeculectomy had similar quality of life and safety outcomes and achieved a lower intraocular pressure compared with primary medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Health Technology Assessment (NIHR-HTA) Programme (project number: 12/35/38). ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN56878850.

A clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of a parent group intervention to manage challenging restricted and repetitive behaviours in young children with autism spectrum disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Restricted and repetitive behaviours vary greatly across the autism spectrum, and although not all are problematic some can cause distress and interfere with learning and social opportunities. We have, alongside parents, developed a parent group based intervention for families of young children with autism, which aims to offer support to parents and carers; helping them to recognise, understand and learn how to respond to their child's challenging restricted repetitive behaviours. METHODS: The study is a clinical and cost-effectiveness, multi-site randomised controlled trial of the Managing Repetitive Behaviours (MRB) parent group intervention versus a psychoeducation parent group Learning About Autism (LAA) (n = 250; 125 intervention/125 psychoeducation; ~ 83/site) for parents of young children aged 3-9 years 11 months with a diagnosis of autism. All analyses will be done under intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcome at 24 weeks will use generalised estimating equation (GEE) to compare proportion of children with improved RRB between the MRB group and the LAA group. The GEE model will account for the clustering of children by parent groups using exchangeable working correlation. All secondary outcomes will be analysed in a similar way using appropriate distribution and link function. The economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of both NHS costs and family access to local community services. A 'within trial' cost-effectiveness analysis with results reported as the incremental cost per additional child achieving at least the target improvement in CGI-I scale at 24 weeks. DISCUSSION: This is an efficacy trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a parent group based intervention designed to help parents understand and manage their child's challenging RRB. If found to be effective, this intervention has the potential to improve the well-being of children and their families, reduce parental stress, greatly enhance community participation and potential for learning, and improve longer-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial ID: ISRCTN15550611 Date registered: 07/08/2018. Sponsor and Monitor: Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust R&D Manager Lyndsey Dixon, Address: St Nicholas Hospital, Jubliee Road, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3XT, lyndsey.dixon@cntw.nhs.uk , Tel: 0191 246 7222.

Prognostic value of test(s) for O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation for predicting overall survival in people with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is an aggressive form of brain cancer. Approximately five in 100 people with glioblastoma survive for five years past diagnosis. Glioblastomas that have a particular modification to their DNA (called methylation) in a particular region (the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter) respond better to treatment with chemotherapy using a drug called temozolomide. OBJECTIVES: To determine which method for assessing MGMT methylation status best predicts overall survival in people diagnosed with glioblastoma who are treated with temozolomide. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index to December 2018, and examined reference lists. For economic evaluation studies, we additionally searched NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were longitudinal (cohort) studies of adults with diagnosed glioblastoma treated with temozolomide with/without radiotherapy/surgery. Studies had to have related MGMT status in tumour tissue (assessed by one or more method) with overall survival and presented results as hazard ratios or with sufficient information (e.g. Kaplan-Meier curves) for us to estimate hazard ratios. We focused mainly on studies comparing two or more methods, and listed brief details of articles that examined a single method of measuring MGMT promoter methylation. We also sought economic evaluations conducted alongside trials, modelling studies and cost analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook all steps of the identification and data extraction process for multiple-method studies. We assessed risk of bias and applicability using our own modified and extended version of the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We compared different techniques, exact promoter regions (5'-cytosine-phosphate-guanine-3' (CpG) sites) and thresholds for interpretation within studies by examining hazard ratios. We performed meta-analyses for comparisons of the three most commonly examined methods (immunohistochemistry (IHC), methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) and pyrosequencing (PSQ)), with ratios of hazard ratios (RHR), using an imputed value of the correlation between results based on the same individuals. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 independent cohorts involving 3474 people that compared two or more methods. We found evidence that MSP (CpG sites 76 to 80 and 84 to 87) is more prognostic than IHC for MGMT protein at varying thresholds (RHR 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.71). We also found evidence that PSQ is more prognostic than IHC for MGMT protein at various thresholds (RHR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.84). The data suggest that PSQ (mainly at CpG sites 74 to 78, using various thresholds) is slightly more prognostic than MSP at sites 76 to 80 and 84 to 87 (RHR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.48). Many variants of PSQ have been compared, although we did not see any strong and consistent messages from the results. Targeting multiple CpG sites is likely to be more prognostic than targeting just one. In addition, we identified and summarised 190 articles describing a single method for measuring MGMT promoter methylation status. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PSQ and MSP appear more prognostic for overall survival than IHC. Strong evidence is not available to draw conclusions with confidence about the best CpG sites or thresholds for quantitative methods. MSP has been studied mainly for CpG sites 76 to 80 and 84 to 87 and PSQ at CpG sites ranging from 72 to 95. A threshold of 9% for CpG sites 74 to 78 performed better than higher thresholds of 28% or 29% in two of three good-quality studies making such comparisons.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Pelvic floor muscle training for preventing and treating urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women.

BACKGROUND: About one-third of women have urinary incontinence (UI) and up to one-tenth have faecal incontinence (FI) after childbirth. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is commonly recommended during pregnancy and after birth for both preventing and treating incontinence. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PFMT for preventing or treating urinary and faecal incontinence in pregnant or postnatal women, and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 7 August 2019), and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials in which one arm included PFMT. Another arm was no PFMT, usual antenatal or postnatal care, another control condition, or an alternative PFMT intervention. Populations included women who, at randomisation, were continent (PFMT for prevention) or incontinent (PFMT for treatment), and a mixed population of women who were one or the other (PFMT for prevention or treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. We extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 trials involving 10,832 women from 21 countries. Overall, trials were small to moderately-sized. The PFMT programmes and control conditions varied considerably and were often poorly described. Many trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Two participants in a study of 43 pregnant women performing PFMT for prevention of incontinence withdrew due to pelvic floor pain. No other trials reported any adverse effects of PFMT. Prevention of UI: compared with usual care, continent pregnant women performing antenatal PFMT probably have a lower risk of reporting UI in late pregnancy (62% less; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.72; 6 trials, 624 women; moderate-quality evidence). Antenatal PFMT slightly decreased the risk of UI in the mid-postnatal period (more than three to six months' postpartum) (29% less; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; 5 trials, 673 women; high-quality evidence). There was insufficient information available for the late postnatal period (more than six to 12 months) to determine effects at this time point (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.21; 1 trial, 44 women; low-quality evidence). Treatment of UI: compared with usual care, there is no evidence that antenatal PFMT in incontinent women decreases incontinence in late pregnancy (very low-quality evidence), or in the mid-(RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.24; 1 trial, 187 women; low-quality evidence), or late postnatal periods (very low-quality evidence). Similarly, in postnatal women with persistent UI, there is no evidence that PFMT results in a difference in UI at more than six to 12 months postpartum (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; 3 trials; 696 women; low-quality evidence). Mixed prevention and treatment approach to UI: antenatal PFMT in women with or without UI probably decreases UI risk in late pregnancy (22% less; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; 11 trials, 3307 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may reduce the risk slightly in the mid-postnatal period (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; 5 trials, 1921 women; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal PFMT reduces the risk of UI at late postpartum (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; 2 trials, 244 women; moderate-quality evidence). For PFMT started after delivery, there was uncertainty about the effect on UI risk in the late postnatal period (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.09; 3 trials, 826 women; moderate-quality evidence). Faecal incontinence: eight trials reported FI outcomes. In postnatal women with persistent FI, it was uncertain whether PFMT reduced incontinence in the late postnatal period compared to usual care (very low-quality evidence). In women with or without FI, there was no evidence that antenatal PFMT led to a difference in the prevalence of FI in late pregnancy (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; 3 trials, 910 women; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, for postnatal PFMT in a mixed population, there was no evidence that PFMT reduces the risk of FI in the late postnatal period (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.21; 1 trial, 107 women, low-quality evidence). There was little evidence about effects on UI or FI beyond 12 months' postpartum. There were few incontinence-specific quality of life data and little consensus on how to measure it. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that early, structured PFMT in early pregnancy for continent women may prevent the onset of UI in late pregnancy and postpartum. Population approaches (recruiting antenatal women regardless of continence status) may have a smaller effect on UI, although the reasons for this are unclear. A population-based approach for delivering postnatal PFMT is not likely to reduce UI. Uncertainty surrounds the effects of PFMT as a treatment for UI in antenatal and postnatal women, which contrasts with the more established effectiveness in mid-life women. It is possible that the effects of PFMT might be greater with targeted rather than mixed prevention and treatment approaches, and in certain groups of women. Hypothetically, for instance, women with a high body mass index (BMI) are at risk of UI. Such uncertainties require further testing and data on duration of effect are also needed. The physiological and behavioural aspects of exercise programmes must be described for both PFMT and control groups, and how much PFMT women in both groups do, to increase understanding of what works and for whom. Few data exist on FI and it is important that this is included in any future trials. It is essential that future trials use valid measures of incontinence-specific quality of life for both urinary and faecal incontinence. In addition to further clinical studies, economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for FI and UI are needed.

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined 'elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining 'elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only.   One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life Moderate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression-free survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty. Severe adverse events Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence). Economic evidence There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.

The value of dementia care towards the end of life-A contingent valuation study.

OBJECTIVES: A dementia nurse specialist (DNS) is expected to improve the quality of care and support to people with dementia nearing, and at, the end of life (EoL) by facilitating some key features of care. The aim of this study was to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) values from the general public perspective, for the different levels of support that the DNS can provide. METHODS: Contingent valuation methods were used to elicit the maximum WTP for scenarios describing different types of support provided by the DNS for EoL care in dementia. In a general population online survey, 1002 participants aged 18 years or more sampled from the United Kingdom provided valuations. Five scenarios were valued with mean WTP value calculated for each scenario along with the relationship between mean WTP and participant characteristics. RESULTS: The mean WTP varied across scenarios with higher values for the scenarios offering more features. Participants with some experience of dementia were willing to pay more compared with those with no experience. WTP values were higher for high-income groups compared with the lowest income level (P < .05). There was no evidence to suggest that respondent characteristics such as age, gender, family size, health utility or education status influenced the WTP values. CONCLUSION: The general population values the anticipated improvement in dementia care provided by a DNS. This study will help inform judgements on interventions to improve the quality of EoL care.

Interval brain imaging for adults with cerebral glioma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain should be performed at certain time points or intervals distant from diagnosis (interval or surveillance imaging) of cerebral glioma, to monitor or follow up the disease; it is not known, however, whether these imaging strategies lead to better outcomes among patients than triggered imaging in response to new or worsening symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of different imaging strategies (in particular, pre-specified interval or surveillance imaging, and symptomatic or triggered imaging) on health and economic outcomes for adults with glioma (grades 2 to 4) in the brain. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers (CGNOC) Group Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase up to 18 June 2019 and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to December 2014 (database closure). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies with concurrent comparison groups comparing the effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes in adults with cerebral glioma; and full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-benefit analyses) conducted alongside any study design, and any model-based economic evaluations on pre- and post-treatment imaging in adults with cerebral glioma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane review methodology with two authors independently performing study selection and data collection, and resolving disagreements through discussion. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one retrospective, single-institution study that compared post-operative imaging within 48 hours (early post-operative imaging) with no early post-operative imaging among 125 people who had surgery for glioblastoma (GBM: World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma). Most patients in the study underwent maximal surgical resection followed by combined radiotherapy and temozolomide treatment. Although patient characteristics in the study arms were comparable, the study was at high risk of bias overall. Evidence from this study suggested little or no difference between early and no early post-operative imaging with respect to overall survival (deaths) at one year after diagnosis of GBM (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.21; 48% vs 55% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence) and little or no difference in overall survival (deaths) at two years after diagnosis of GBM (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 86% vs 81% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence). No other review outcomes were reported. We found no evidence on the effectiveness of other imaging schedules. In addition, we identified no relevant economic evaluations assessing the efficiency of the different imaging strategies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes remains largely unknown. Existing imaging schedules in glioma seem to be pragmatic rather than evidence-based. The limited evidence suggesting that early post-operative brain imaging among GBM patients who will receive combined chemoradiation treatment may make little or no difference to survival needs to be further researched, particularly as early post-operative imaging also serves as a quality control measure that may lead to early re-operation if residual tumour is identified. Mathematical modelling of a large glioma patient database could help to distinguish the optimal timing of surveillance imaging for different types of glioma, with stratification of patients facilitated by assessment of individual tumour growth rates, molecular biomarkers and other prognostic factors. In addition, paediatric glioma study designs could be used to inform future research of imaging strategies among adults with glioma.

Long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma.

BACKGROUND: Gliomas are brain tumours arising from glial cells with an annual incidence of 4 to 11 people per 100,000. In this review we focus on gliomas with low aggressive potential in the short term, i.e. low-grade gliomas. Most people with low-grade gliomas are treated with surgery and may receive radiotherapy thereafter. However, there is concern about the possible long-term effects of radiotherapy, especially on neurocognitive functioning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) compared with no radiotherapy, or different types of radiotherapy, among people with glioma (where 'long-term' is defined as at least two years after diagnosis); and to write a brief economic commentary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 16 February 2018 and updated the search on 14 November 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018 to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAS). Participants were aged 16 years and older with cerebral glioma other than glioblastoma. We included studies where patients in at least one treatment arm received radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, and where neurocognitive outcomes were assessed two or more years after treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of findings using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: The review includes nine studies: seven studies were of low-grade glioma and two were of grade 3 glioma. Altogether 2406 participants were involved but there was high sample attrition and outcome data were available for a minority of people at final study assessments. In seven of the nine studies, participants were recruited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which longer-term follow-up was undertaken in a subset of people that had survived without disease progression. There was moderate to high risk of bias in studies due to lack of blinding and high attrition, and in two observational studies there was high risk of selection bias. Paucity of data and risk of bias meant that evidence was of low to very low certainty. We were unable to combine results in meta-analysis due to diversity in interventions and outcomes.The studies examined the following five comparisons.Radiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatmentTwo observational studies contributed data. At the 12-year follow-up in one study, the risk of cognitive impairment (defined as cognitive disability deficits in at least five of 18 neuropsychological tests) was greater in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.71; n = 65); at five to six years the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.06; n = 195). In the other study, one subject in the radiotherapy group had cognitive impairment (defined as significant deterioration in eight of 12 neuropsychological tests) at two years compared with none in the control group (very low certainty evidence).With regard to neurocognitive scores, in one study the radiotherapy group was reported to have had significantly worse mean scores on some tests compared with no radiotherapy; however, the raw data were only given for significant findings. In the second study, there were no clear differences in any of the various cognitive outcomes at two years (n = 31) and four years (n = 15) (very low certainty evidence).Radiotherapy versus chemotherapyOne RCT contributed data on cognitive impairment at up to three years with no clear difference between arms (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.70, n = 117) (low-certainty evidence).High-dose radiotherapy versus low-dose radiotherapyOnly one of two studies reporting this comparison contributed data, and at two and five years there were no clear differences between high- and low-dose radiotherapy arms (very low certainty evidence).Conventional radiotherapy versus stereotactic conformal radiotherapyOne study involving younger people contributed limited data from the subgroup aged 16 to 25 years. The numbers of participants with neurocognitive impairment at five years after treatment were two out of 12 in the conventional arm versus none out of 11 in the stereotactic conformal radiotherapy arm (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 86.72; n = 23; low-certainty evidence).Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapyTwo RCTs tested for cognitive impairment. One defined cognitive impairment as a decline of more than 3 points in MMSE score compared with baseline and reported data from 2-year (110 participants), 3-year (91 participants), and 5-year (57 participants) follow-up with no clear difference between the two arms at any time point. A second study did not report raw data but measured MMSE scores over five years in 126 participants at two years, 110 at three years, 69 at four years and 53 at five years. Authors concluded that there was no difference in MMSE scores between the two study arms (P = 0.4752) (low-certainty evidence).Two RCTs reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes for this comparison. One reported no differences in Brain-QoL scores between study arms over a 5-year follow-up period (P = 0.2767; no raw data were given and denominators were not stated). The other trial reported that the long-term results of health-related QoL showed no difference between the arms but did not give the raw data for overall HRQoL scores (low-certainty evidence).We found no comparative data on endocrine dysfunction; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary but found no relevant economic studies for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy for gliomas with a good prognosis may increase the risk of neurocognitive side effects in the long term; however the magnitude of the risk is uncertain. Evidence on long-term neurocognitive side effects associated with chemoradiotherapy is also uncertain. Neurocognitive assessment should be an integral part of long-term follow-up in trials involving radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas to improve the certainty of evidence regarding long-term neurocognitive effects. Such trials should also assess other potential long-term effects, including endocrine dysfunction, and evaluate costs and cost effectiveness.