Psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in patients with coronary heart disease, heart failure or atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety occur frequently (with reported prevalence rates of around 40%) in individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF) or atrial fibrillation (AF) and are associated with a poor prognosis, such as decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and increased morbidity and mortality. Psychological interventions are developed and delivered by psychologists or specifically trained healthcare workers and commonly include cognitive behavioural therapies and mindfulness-based stress reduction. They have been shown to reduce depression and anxiety in the general population, though the exact mechanism of action is not well understood. Further, their effects on psychological and clinical outcomes in patients with CHD, HF or AF are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions (alone, or with cardiac rehabilitation or pharmacotherapy, or both) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, compared to no psychological intervention, on psychological and clinical outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2009 to July 2022. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2020, and checked the reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological interventions with no psychological intervention for a minimum of six months follow-up in adults aged over 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, with or without depression or anxiety. Studies had to report on either depression or anxiety or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were depression and anxiety, and our secondary outcomes of interest were HRQoL mental and physical components, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (2591 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included people with CHD, five with HF and none with AF. Study sample sizes ranged from 29 to 430. Twenty and 17 studies reported the primary outcomes of depression and anxiety, respectively. Despite the high heterogeneity and variation, we decided to pool the studies using a random-effects model, recognising that the model does not eliminate heterogeneity and findings should be interpreted cautiously. We found that psychological interventions probably have a moderate effect on reducing depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.65 to -0.06; 20 studies, 2531 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.18; 17 studies, 2235 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions may have little to no effect on HRQoL physical component summary scores (PCS) (SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.98; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may have a moderate effect on improving HRQoL mental component summary scores (MCS) (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.26; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions probably have little to no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.69; 3 studies, 615 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have little to no effect on MACE (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.92; 4 studies, 450 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that psychological interventions for depression and anxiety probably result in a moderate reduction in depression and anxiety and may result in a moderate improvement in HRQoL MCS, compared to no intervention. However, they may have little to no effect on HRQoL PCS and MACE, and probably do not reduce mortality (all-cause) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD or HF, compared with no psychological intervention. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity identified across studies. Thus, evidence of treatment effects on these outcomes warrants careful interpretation. As there were no studies of psychological interventions for patients with AF included in our review, this is a gap that needs to be addressed in future studies, particularly in view of the rapid growth of research on management of AF. Studies investigating cost-effectiveness, return to work and cardiovascular morbidity (revascularisation) are also needed to better understand the benefits of psychological interventions in populations with heart disease.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure - 2023 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Despite strong evidence, access to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) remains low across global healthcare systems. We provide a contemporary update of the Cochrane review randomized trial evidence for ExCR for adults with heart failure (HF) and compare different delivery modes: centre-based, home-based (including digital support), and both (hybrid). METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases, bibliographies of previous systematic reviews and included trials, and trials registers were searched with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials, recruiting adults with HF, assigned to either ExCR or a no-exercise control group, with follow-up of ≥6 months were included. Two review authors independently screened titles for inclusion, extracted trial and patient characteristics, outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of mortality, hospitalization, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled across trials using meta-analysis at short-term (≤12 months) and long-term follow-up (>12 months) and stratified by delivery mode. Sixty trials (8728 participants) were included. In the short term, compared to control, ExCR did not impact all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.21), reduced all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86, number needed to treat: 13, 95% CI 9-22), and was associated with a clinically important improvement in HRQoL measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHF) overall score (mean difference: -7.39; 95% CI -10.30 to -4.47). Improvements in outcomes with ExCR was seen across centre, home (including digitally supported), and hybrid settings. A similar pattern of results was seen in the long term (mortality: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.04; all-cause hospitalization: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.01, MLWHF: -9.59, 95% CI -17.48 to -1.50). CONCLUSIONS: To improve global suboptimal levels of uptake for HF patients, global healthcare systems need to routinely recommend ExCR and offer a choice of mode of delivery, dependent on an individual patient's level of risk and complexity.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes. METHODS: An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained). RESULTS: LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold. LIMITATIONS: LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

Physical activity interventions for people with congenital heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Congenital heart disease (ConHD) affects approximately 1% of all live births. People with ConHD are living longer due to improved medical intervention and are at risk of developing non-communicable diseases. Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is reduced in people with ConHD, who deteriorate faster compared to healthy people. CRF is known to be prognostic of future mortality and morbidity: it is therefore important to assess the evidence base on physical activity interventions in this population to inform decision making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of physical activity interventions versus standard care in individuals with congenital heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a systematic search on 23 September 2019 of the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, BIOSIS Citation Index, Web of Science Core Collection, LILACS and DARE. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and we reviewed the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared any type of physical activity intervention against a 'no physical activity' (usual care) control. We included all individuals with a diagnosis of congenital heart disease, regardless of age or previous medical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (CAW and CW) independently screened all the identified references for inclusion. We retrieved and read all full papers; and we contacted study authors if we needed any further information. The same two independent reviewers who extracted the data then processed the included papers, assessed their risk of bias using RoB 2 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: maximal cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) assessed by peak oxygen consumption; health-related quality of life (HRQoL) determined by a validated questionnaire; and device-worn 'objective' measures of physical activity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs with 924 participants in the review. The median intervention length/follow-up length was 12 weeks (12 to 26 interquartile range (IQR)). There were five RCTs of children and adolescents (n = 500) and 10 adult RCTs (n = 424). We identified three types of intervention: physical activity promotion; exercise training; and inspiratory muscle training. We assessed the risk of bias of results for CRF as either being of some concern (n = 12) or at a high risk of bias (n = 2), due to a failure to blind intervention staff. One study did not report this outcome. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of evidence as moderate to very low across measured outcomes. When we pooled all types of interventions (physical activity promotion, exercise training and inspiratory muscle training), compared to a 'no exercise' control CRF may slightly increase, with a mean difference (MD) of 1.89 mL/kg-1/min-1 (95% CI -0.22 to 3.99; n = 732; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity and exercise interventions on HRQoL. There was a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.76 (95% CI -0.13 to 1.65; n = 163; very low certainty evidence) in HRQoL. However, we could pool only three studies in a meta-analysis, due to different ways of reporting. Only one study out of eight showed a positive effect on HRQoL. There may be a small improvement in mean daily physical activity (PA) (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.92; n = 328; low-certainty evidence), which equates to approximately an additional 10 minutes of physical activity daily (95% CI -2.50 to 22.20). Physical activity and exercise interventions likely result in an increase in submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness (MD 2.05, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.05; n = 179; moderate-certainty evidence). Physical activity and exercise interventions likely increase muscular strength (MD 17.13, 95% CI 3.45 to 30.81; n = 18; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (n = 501) reported on the outcome of adverse events (73% of total studies). Of the 11 studies, six studies reported zero adverse events. Five studies reported a total of 11 adverse events; 36% of adverse events were cardiac related (n = 4); there were, however, no serious adverse events related to the interventions or reported fatalities (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported hospital admissions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the latest evidence on CRF, HRQoL and PA. Although there were only small improvements in CRF and PA, and small to no improvements in HRQoL, there were no reported serious adverse events related to the interventions. Although these data are promising, there is currently insufficient evidence to definitively determine the impact of physical activity interventions in ConHD. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are therefore needed, utilising a longer duration of follow-up.

Voretigene Neparvovec for Treating Inherited Retinal Dystrophies Caused by RPE65 Gene Mutations: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Highly Specialised Technology Appraisal.

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considered evidence for voretigene neparvovec (VN; Luxturna®) for the treatment of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophies (IRD) within its highly specialised technology programme. This paper summarises the evidence provided by the company; the appraisal of the evidence by the Peninsula Technology Appraisal Group, who were commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG); and the development of the NICE guidance by the appraisal committee. The evidence presented by the company highlighted the significant lifelong burden of IRD for patients and carers. Evidence to support the effectiveness of VN was lacking, but the available evidence showed a modest, sustained improvement across a variety of vision-related outcomes. While patients would remain visually impaired, the committee considered that VN would prevent further deterioration in vision. The modelling approach used by the company had a number of limitations and relied heavily upon a large volume of clinical expert input to produce cost-effectiveness estimates with large uncertainty around long-term effectiveness. The ERG's main concerns revolved around these long-term outcomes and the plausibility of utility values. The NICE committee were convinced that the clinical benefits of VN were important and an appropriate use of national health service resources within a specialised service. The committee concluded that a high unmet need existed in patients with RPE65-mediated IRD and that VN represents a step change in the management of this condition.

Understanding why primary care doctors leave direct patient care: a systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: UK general practitioners (GPs) are leaving direct patient care in significant numbers. We undertook a systematic review of qualitative research to identify factors affecting GPs' leaving behaviour in the workforce as part of a wider mixed methods study (ReGROUP). OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that affect GPs' decisions to leave direct patient care. METHODS: Qualitative interview-based studies were identified and their quality was assessed. A thematic analysis was performed and an explanatory model was constructed providing an overview of factors affecting UK GPs. Non-UK studies were considered separately. RESULTS: Six UK interview-based studies and one Australian interview-based study were identified. Three central dynamics that are key to understanding UK GP leaving behaviour were identified: factors associated with low job satisfaction, high job satisfaction and those linked to the doctor-patient relationship. The importance of contextual influence on job satisfaction emerged. GPs with high job satisfaction described feeling supported by good practice relationships, while GPs with poor job satisfaction described feeling overworked and unsupported with negatively impacted doctor-patient relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Many GPs report that job satisfaction directly relates to the quality of the doctor-patient relationship. Combined with changing relationships with patients and interfaces with secondary care, and the gradual sense of loss of autonomy within the workplace, many GPs report a reduction in job satisfaction. Once job satisfaction has become negatively impacted, the combined pressure of increased patient demand and workload, together with other stress factors, has left many feeling unsupported and vulnerable to burn-out and ill health, and ultimately to the decision to leave general practice.

How is knowledge shared in Public involvement? A qualitative study of involvement in a health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in research is seen as a quality marker by funders. To understand the process and impact of involvement, more in-depth studies are needed on how members of the public contribute in meetings with researchers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to observe and reflect on what is said by public advisers in involvement. We wanted to understand (a) what knowledge and experience is shared during research meetings, and (b) how this knowledge is shared with researchers. METHODS: Data were collected in November 2016 as part of the public involvement in a health technology assessment of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Three meetings were audio recorded and observed with the purpose of understanding how members of the public contributed during the meetings. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analysed using a thematic approach, with the coding framework developed inductively. We also included reflections from a community drop-in session. RESULTS: Members of the public brought three different 'sources' of knowledge and experience to meetings with researchers: direct lived personal experience; learnt knowledge; and the experience and values of others. The data suggest that group settings allow for dynamic discussions and sharing of different types of knowledge. CONCLUSION: Group-based involvement meetings allow for the synergistic combination of individual knowledge and experience. This gives researchers a broader understanding of the topic, which can be the vehicle for patient impact on the research. A combination of group meeting and community drop-in can enable more varied input into research planning and conduct.

Exercise-Based Rehabilitation for Heart Failure: Cochrane Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study performed a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: There is an increasing call for trials of models of ExCR for patients with HF that provide alternatives to conventional center-based provision and recruitment of patients that reflect a broader HF population. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched between January 2013 and January 2018. Randomized trials comparing patients undergoing ExCR to control patients not undergoing exercise were included. Study outcomes were pooled using meta-analysis. Metaregression examined potential effect modification according to ExCR program characteristics, and risk of bias, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied. RESULTS: Across 44 trials (n = 5,783; median follow-up of 6 months), compared with control subjects, ExCR did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66 to 1.21; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.26 to 3.10) but did reduce all-cause hospitalization (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.83; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.54 to 0.92) and HF-specific hospitalization (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.84; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.14 for 2.46), and patients reported improved Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire overall scores (mean difference: -7.1; 95% CI: -10.5 to -3.7; TSA-adjusted CI: -13.2 to -1.0). No evidence of differential effects across different models of delivery, including center- versus home-based programs, were found. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the beneficial effects of ExCR on patient outcomes. These benefits appear to be consistent across ExCR program characteristics. GRADE and TSA assessments indicated that further high-quality randomized trials are needed.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients following open surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implant: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) may be beneficial to patients following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and open surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety and costs of exercise-based CR post-TAVI and post-SAVR. Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, CENTRAL and MEDLINE, up to October 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) of exercise-based CR compared with no exercise control in TAVI or SAVR patients ≥18 years. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis (where appropriate) were carried out for all relevant outcomes, and a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis was also performed. Results: Six studies, all at low risk of bias, were included: three RCTs and three non-RCTs (total of 27 TAVI, 99 SAVR and 129 mixed patients), with follow-up of 2-12 months. There was an increase in pooled exercise capacity (standardised mean difference: 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; moderate certainty evidence as assessed by GRADE), with exercise-based rehabilitation compared with control. Data on other outcomes including quality of life and clinical events were limited. Conclusions: Exercise-based CR probably improves exercise capacity of post-TAVI and post-SAVR patients in the short term. Well conducted multicentre fully powered RCTs of ≥12 months follow-up are needed to fully assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR in this patient population. PROSPERO Protocol Registration Number: CRD42017084716.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for stable angina: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: A systematic review was undertaken to assess the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patients with stable angina. Methods: Databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) were searched up to October 2017, without language restriction. Randomised trials comparing CR programmes with no exercise control in adults with stable angina were included. Where possible, study outcomes were pooled using meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence. The protocol was published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results: Seven studies (581 patients), with a median of 12-month follow-up, were included. The effect of exercise-based CR on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95 % CI: 0.18 to 5.67), acute myocardial infarction (RR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.63) and cardiovascular-related hospital admissions (RR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.1) relative to control were uncertain. We found low-quality evidence that exercise-based CR results in a moderate improvement in exercise capacity (standard mean difference 0.45, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.70). There was limited and very low-quality evidence for the effect of exercise-based CR on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events and costs. No data were identified on cost-effectiveness or return to work. Conclusions: Exercise-based CR may improve the short-term exercise capacity of patients with stable angina pectoris. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to definitely determine the impact of CR on outcomes including mortality, morbidity, HRQoL, and costs in the population of patients with stable angina receiving contemporary medical therapy.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.

Do we know enough about the effect of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer on survival to act? A systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early. METHODS: Our objective was to estimate the effect of LDCT lung cancer screening on mortality in high-risk populations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programme (such as chest X-ray (CXR)) was conducted. RCTs of CXR screening were additionally included in the network meta-analysis. Bibliographic sources including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to January 2017. All key review steps were done by two persons. Quality assessment used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Four RCTs were included. More will provide data in the future. Meta-analysis demonstrated that LDCT screening with up to 9.80 years of follow-up was associated with a statistically non-significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.19; p = 0.62). There was a statistically non-significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution.Network meta-analysis including the four original RCTs plus two further RCTs assessed the relative effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy, CXR screening as the worst strategy and usual care intermediate. CONCLUSIONS: LDCT screening may be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality but there is considerable uncertainty: the largest of the RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening; there is imprecision of the estimates; and there is important heterogeneity between the included study results. The uncertainty about the effect on all-cause mortality is even greater. Maturing trials may resolve the uncertainty.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses. LIMITATIONS: Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included. CONCLUSIONS: LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits. FUTURE WORK: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial]. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with stable angina.

BACKGROUND: A previous Cochrane review has shown that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can benefit myocardial infarction and post-revascularisation patients. However, the impact on stable angina remains unclear and guidance is inconsistent. Whilst recommended in the guidelines of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology, in the UK the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) states that there is "no evidence to suggest that CR is clinically or cost-effective for managing stable angina". OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of exercise-based CR compared to usual care for adults with stable angina. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review 'Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease' by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, CINAHL and Web of Science on 2 October 2017. We searched two trials registers, and performed reference checking and forward-citation searching of all primary studies and review articles, to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least six months, which compared structured exercise-based CR with usual care for people with stable angina. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors also independently assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE principles and we presented this information in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (581 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Trials had an intervention length of 6 weeks to 12 months and follow-up length of 6 to 12 months. The comparison group in all trials was usual care (without any form of structured exercise training or advice) or a no-exercise comparator. The mean age of participants within the trials ranged from 50 to 66 years, the majority of participants being male (range: 74% to 100%). In terms of risk of bias, the majority of studies were unclear about their generation of the randomisation sequence and concealment processes. One study was at high risk of detection bias as it did not blind its participants or outcome assessors, and two studies had a high risk of attrition bias due to the numbers of participants lost to follow-up. Two trials were at high risk of outcome reporting bias. Given the high risk of bias, small number of trials and participants, and concerns about applicability, we downgraded our assessments of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE tool.Due to the very low-quality of the evidence base, we are uncertain about the effect of exercise-based CR on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 5.67; 195 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), acute myocardial infarction (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.63; 254 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence) and cardiovascular-related hospital admissions (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.1; 101 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). We found low-quality evidence that exercise-based CR may result in a small improvement in exercise capacity compared to control (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; 267 participants; 5 studies, low-quality evidence). We were unable to draw conclusions about the impact of exercise-based CR on quality of life (angina frequency and emotional health-related quality-of-life score) and CR-related adverse events (e.g. skeletomuscular injury, cardiac arrhythmia), due to the very low quality of evidence. No data were reported on return to work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the small number of trials and their small size, potential risk of bias and concerns about imprecision and lack of applicability, we are uncertain of the effects of exercise-based CR compared to control on mortality, morbidity, cardiovascular hospital admissions, adverse events, return to work and health-related quality of life in people with stable angina. Low-quality evidence indicates that exercise-based CR may result in a small increase in exercise capacity compared to usual care. High-quality, well-reported randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based CR for adults with stable angina. Such trials need to collect patient-relevant outcomes, including clinical events and health-related quality of life. They should also assess cost-effectiveness, and recruit participants that are reflective of the real-world population of people with angina.

Why do GPs leave direct patient care and what might help to retain them? A qualitative study of GPs in South West England.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing general practitioners' (GPs') decisions about whether or not to remain in direct patient care in general practice and what might help to retain them in that role. DESIGN: Qualitative, in-depth, individual interviews exploring factors related to GPs leaving, remaining in and returning to direct patient care. SETTING: South West England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 41 GPs: 7 retired; 8 intending to take early retirement; 11 who were on or intending to take a career break; 9 aged under 50 years who had left or were intending to leave direct patient care and 6 who were not intending to leave or to take a career break. Plus 19 stakeholders from a range of primary care-related professional organisations and roles. RESULTS: Reasons for leaving direct patient care were complex and based on a range of job-related and individual factors. Three key themes underpinned the interviewed GPs' thinking and rationale: issues relating to their personal and professional identity and the perceived value of general practice-based care within the healthcare system; concerns regarding fear and risk, for example, in respect of medical litigation and managing administrative challenges within the context of increasingly complex care pathways and environments; and issues around choice and volition in respect of personal social, financial, domestic and professional considerations. These themes provide increased understanding of the lived experiences of working in today's National Health Service for this group of GPs. CONCLUSION: Future policies and strategies aimed at retaining GPs in direct patient care should clarify the role and expectations of general practice and align with GPs' perception of their own roles and identity; demonstrate to GPs that they are valued and listened to in planning delivery of the UK healthcare; target GPs' concerns regarding fear and risk, seeking to reduce these to manageable levels and give GPs viable options to support them to remain in direct patient care.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating cancer treatment-induced anaemia (including review of technology appraisal no. 142): a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a common side effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ESAs in anaemia associated with cancer treatment (specifically chemotherapy). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from 2004 to 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, Health Management Information Consortium, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites were also searched. Bibliographies of included papers were scrutinised for further potentially includable studies. REVIEW METHODS: The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care, placebo or other ESAs. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. When appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment with no ESA treatment. The model comprised two components: one evaluating short-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (while patients are anaemic) and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 1457 titles and abstracts screened, 23 studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current European Union licenses. The results suggest a clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes and an improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain, although point estimates are lower, confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment compared with no ESA treatment ranged from £ 19,429 to £ 35,018 per QALY gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost. LIMITATIONS: The relative effectiveness of ESAs was not addressed; all ESAs were assumed to have equivalent efficacy. No studies were completely aligned with their European labelling beyond the starting dose evaluated. There is questionable generalisability given that the included trials were published >20 years ago and there have been many changes to chemotherapy as well as to the quality of supportive treatment. Trial quality was moderate or poor and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity for a number of outcomes, particularly survival, and evidence of publication bias. Adjustments were not made to account for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence, but there is considerable uncertainty, mainly because of unknown impacts on overall survival. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005812. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.