Bone-anchored hearing aids for people with bilateral hearing impairment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are indicated for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who can benefit from amplification of sound. In resource limited health care systems, it is important that evidence regarding the benefit of BAHAs is critically appraised to aid decision-making. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To assess the clinical effectiveness of BAHAs for people with bilateral hearing impairment. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2009. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and BAHA manufacturers. EVALUATION METHOD: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment of full papers were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through narrative review with tabulation of results. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Studies suggested audiological benefits of BAHAs when compared with bone-conduction hearing aids or no aiding. A mixed pattern of results was seen when BAHAs were compared to air-conduction hearing aids. Improvements in quality of life with BAHAs were found by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic quality of life measures. Issues such as improvement of discharging ears and length of time the aid can be worn were not adequately addressed by the studies. Studies demonstrated some benefits of bilateral BAHAs. Adverse events data were limited. The quality of the studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is weak. As such, caution is indicated in the interpretation of presently available data. However, based on the available evidence, BAHAs appear to be a reasonable treatment option for people with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. Further research into the benefits of BAHAs, including quality of life, is required to reduce the uncertainty.

Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and pegaptanib for subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) associated with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2006. Experts in the field were consulted and manufacturers' submissions were examined. REVIEW METHODS: The quality of included studies was assessed using standard methods and the clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. A model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and of pegaptanib (separately), compared with current practice or best supportive care, from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Two time horizons were adopted for each model. The first adopted time horizons determined by the available trial data. The second analysis extrapolated effects of treatment beyond the clinical trials, adopting a time horizon of 10 years. RESULTS: The combined analysis of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pegaptanib [0.3 mg (licensed dose), 1.0 mg and 3.0 mg] versus sham injection in patients with all lesion types was reported by three publications (the VISION study). Three published RCTs of ranibizumab were identified (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS), and an additional unpublished RCT was provided by the manufacturer (PIER). Significantly more patients lost less than 15 letters of visual acuity at 12 months when taking pegaptanib (0.3 mg: 70% of patients; 1.0 mg: 71% of patients; 3.0 mg: 65% of patients) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg: 94.3-94.5%; 0.5 mg: 94.6-96.4%) than sham injection patients (55% versus pegaptanib and 62.2% versus ranibizumab) or, in the case of ranibizumab, photodynamic therapy (PDT) (64.3%). The proportion of patients gaining 15 letters or more (a clinically important outcome having a significant impact on quality of life) was statistically significantly greater in the pegaptanib group for doses of 0.3 and 1.0 mg but not for 3.0 mg, and for all ranibizumab groups compared to the sham injection groups or PDT. This was also statistically significant for patients receiving 0.5 mg ranibizumab plus PDT compared with PDT plus sham injection. Pegaptanib patients lost statistically significantly fewer letters after 12 months of treatment than the sham group [mean letters lost: 7.5 (0.3 mg), 6.5 (1.0 mg) or 10 (3.0 mg) vs 14.5 (sham)]. In the MARINA and ANCHOR trials, ranibizumab patients gained letters of visual acuity at 12 months whereas patients with sham injection or PDT lost about 10 letters (p<0.001) and in the PIER study, ranibizumab patients lost significantly fewer than the sham injection group. Significantly fewer patients receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab deteriorated to legal blindness compared with the control groups. Adverse events were common for both pegaptanib andranibizumab but most were mild to moderate. Drug costs for 1 year of treatment were estimated as 4626 pounds for pegaptanib and 9134 pounds for ranibizumab. Non-drug costs accounted for an additional 2614 pounds for pegaptanib and 3120 pounds for ranibizumab. Further costs are associated with the management of injection-related adverse events, from 1200 pounds to 2100 pounds. For pegaptanib compared with usual care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from 163,603 pounds for the 2-year model to 30,986 pounds for the 10-year model. Similarly, the ICERs for ranibizumab for patients with minimally classic and occult no classic lesions, compared with usual care, ranged from 152,464 pounds for the 2-year model to 25,098 pounds for the 10-year model. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AMD of any lesion type benefit from treatment with pegaptanib or ranibizumab on measures of visual acuity when compared with sham injection and/or PDT. Patients who continued treatment with either drug appeared to maintain benefits after 2 years of follow-up. When comparing pegaptanib and ranibizumab, the evidence was less clear due to the lack of direct comparison through head-to-head trials and the lack of opportunity for indirect statistical comparison due to heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the two drugs offered additional benefit over the comparators of usual care and PDT but at increased cost. Future research should encompass trials to compare pegaptanib with ranibizumab and bevacizumab, and to investigate the role of verteporfin PDT in combination with these drugs. Studies are also needed to assess adverse events outside the proposed RCTs, to consider the optimal dosing regimes of these drugs and the benefits of re-treatment after initial treatment, and to review costing in more detail. Health state utilities and their relationship with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, the relationship between duration of vision loss and the quality of life and functional impact of vision loss, behavioural studies of those genetically at risk are other topics requiring further research.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases from inception to February 2006, bibliographies of studies, and experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were selected, quality assessed and data were extracted using recognised methods agreed a priori. Meta-analysis was undertaken where appropriate using the random effects model. Where data allowed, subgroup analysis was undertaken according to renal histopathology. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews and 11 trials were included in the clinical effectiveness review; however, the quality of reporting and methodology of the included studies was generally poor. No economic evaluations were identified. No statistically significant difference in remission rates was found between cyclophosphamide plus prednisone and prednisone alone for all children or those with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), also the time to response was statistically significantly less with cyclophosphamide (38.4 days versus 95.5 days). Remission rates were not statistically significantly different between intravenous and oral cyclophosphamide. Vomiting was common with intravenous cyclophosphamide, while pneumonia and alopecia occurred in the oral group. Ciclosporin statistically significantly increased the number of children with complete remission compared with placebo or supportive treatment, but not for the FSGS subgroup, adverse effects including infection and hypertension differed little between groups. No differences were found between azathioprine and placebo, with about 13% of each group having remission. Complete or partial remission occurred in six out of seven patients on the 18-month methylprednisolone regimen and three out of five patients on the 6-month regimen, for both groups renal function improved and adverse events such as hypertension and frequent infections occurred. Intravenous dexamethasone and methylprednisolone produced similar complete remission rates, partial remission rates, median time to response (about 10 days) and total number of adverse events, with hypertension as the most common. Six-hour urinary albumin and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio decreased statistically significantly with high-dose but not low-dose enalapril. Tuna fish oil was not associated with any statistically significant improvements in proteinuria, creatinine clearance, serum creatinine or lipid profiles compared with placebo. A very limited literature was found on costs associated with SRNS in children. The pharmaceutical cost of treatment varied considerably: an 8-week course of cyclophosphamide cost less than 6 pounds, while a course of ciclosporin cost almost 900 pounds per year. Treatment with tacrolimus, an alternative to ciclosporin, was estimated to cost in excess of 3400 pounds per year. Healthcare medical management costs were estimated; varying by treatment strategy, they ranged from 250 pounds to 930 pounds per year in patients not experiencing complications. Other longer term costs may also be incurred. Lack of data meant that cost-effectiveness modelling was not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness literature on treatments for idiopathic SRNS in children is very limited. The available evidence suggests a beneficial effect of ciclosporin on remission rates and of cyclophosphamide on time to remission; however, the strength of the conclusions drawn is limited by the poor quality of the included studies. The other treatments included in this review were each evaluated by only one study, and none found a statistically significant effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically significant difference. The available data on costs and outcomes are sparse and do not permit the reliable modelling of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for SRNS at present. A modelling framework is suggested, should more relevant data become available. A well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin with other treatments in children with SRNS without genetic mutation is required.

Fundus autofluorescence imaging: systematic review of test accuracy for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal conditions.

We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging for diagnosing and monitoring retinal conditions. Searches in November 2014 identified English language references. Sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDION databases; reference lists of retrieved studies; and internet pages of relevant organisations, meetings, and trial registries. For inclusion, studies had to report FAF imaging accuracy quantitatively. Studies were critically appraised using QUADAS risk of bias criteria. Two reviewers conducted all review steps. From 2240 unique references identified, eight primary research studies met the inclusion criteria. These investigated diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging for choroidal neovascularisation (one study), reticular pseudodrusen (three studies), cystoid macular oedema (two studies), and diabetic macular oedema (two studies). Diagnostic sensitivity of FAF imaging ranged from 32 to 100% and specificity from 34 to 100%. However, owing to methodological limitations, including high and/or unclear risks of bias, none of these studies provides conclusive evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. In most studies, the patient spectrum was not reflective of those who would present in clinical practice and no studies adequately reported whether FAF images were interpreted consistently. No studies of monitoring accuracy were identified. An update in October 2016, based on MEDLINE and internet searches, identified four new studies but did not alter our conclusions. Robust quantitative evidence on the accuracy of FAF imaging and how FAF images are interpreted is lacking. We provide recommendations to address this.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the treatment of people with atopic eczema. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies and related papers. Experts in the field. Manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. RESULTS: One RCT comparing moderately potent corticosteroids, eight RCTs comparing potent corticosteroids and one RCT comparing very potent corticosteroids were included. No RCTs or CCTs of mild corticosteroids were eligible. Most RCTs were of poor methodological quality, although two were judged to be of good quality. The only study that compared moderately potent corticosteroids found no significant difference between once- and twice-daily application. For potent corticosteroids, some statistically significant differences in numbers of patients responding to treatment were identified favouring twice-daily treatment, but these were inconsistent between physician and patient assessment and outcomes selected for analysis. Two studies found a significant improvement in some symptoms with once-daily mometasone furoate compared with twice-daily application of a different active compound, while a third study found no significant differences. One good-quality study favoured twice-daily application of fluticasone propionate ointment, while other studies found no significant difference or an improvement in one symptom but not others. The only study comparing very potent corticosteroids found a statistically significant difference in comparative clinical response in favour of three-times daily treatment, but no difference in number of patients with at least a good response. There appears to be little difference in the frequency or severity of short-term events, however data are limited. No published economic evaluations were identified. Given findings on clinical effectiveness, where outcomes from the comparators are similar, the relative cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent application of topical corticosteroids becomes a case of cost-minimisation, where the least-cost alternative should be favoured, all else being equal. Topical corticosteroid products included in this review have a wide variation in price; the cost per 30 g/30 ml varies between GBP0.60 and GBP4.88. Specific decisions on the least-cost alternative, between once-daily and more frequent application of products, will be determined by the relative price of the products being compared. Where patients can be appropriately prescribed once-daily treatment of a similarly priced product, a reduction in the quantity of topical corticosteroid used will be expected. However, issues related to pack size for prescribed products and subsequent waste (unused product) could easily erode any potential saving. The potential cost-savings on prescribed products are very small at a patient level; although given the large numbers of patients with atopic eczema, cost savings in theory could be substantial. The presence of specifically marketed 'once-daily' topical corticosteroids, which are relatively expensive (per unit price), may result in additional costs should there be a general recommendation in favour of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids, compared to more frequent use. CONCLUSIONS: The literature is very limited; that available indicates the clinical effectiveness of once-daily and more frequent application of potent topical corticosteroids is very similar, but it does not offer a basis for favouring either option. The cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use will depend on the generalisability of the findings to the specific treatment decision and the relative product prices. The trials included in this review generally refer to moderate to severe atopic eczema, whereas most patients have mild disease, and furthermore most of the included trials report on potent topical corticosteroids (eight of 10 RCTs); therefore the generalisability of the findings is limited. Further research is required on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency corticosteroids, specifically on mild potency products for mild to moderate atopic eczema. Outcomes should include quality of life and compliance.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) compared with multiple daily injections (MDI) in the delivery of intensive insulin therapy for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, references of retrieved articles and manufacturer submissions. Experts in the field were consulted. REVIEW METHODS: For the systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data on clinical effectiveness were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of all eligible studies, with meta-analysis performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty studies comparing CSII with MDI were identified. Quality was generally poor. In adults with Type 1 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin improved by 0.61% (95% CI -1.29 to 0.07) in longer term studies, although this improvement was smaller when a study using bovine ultralente was excluded. A reduction in insulin dose with CSII of about 12 units per day (-11.90, 95% CI -18.16 to 5.63) was found in short-term studies, with smaller differences in longer term studies. Body weight and cholesterol levels were similar between treatments. Hypoglycaemic events did not differ significantly between CSII and MDI in most trials, but some found fewer events with CSII and one found more hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemic coma with CSII. There was no consistency between the studies in patient preference, but progress has been made both with insulin pumps and injector pens since the publication of many of the older studies. No difference in glycated haemoglobin between CSII and MDI was found in pregnancy; one study found less insulin was required by patients with CSII, but two other studies found no significant difference. One study of adolescents found lower glycated haemoglobin and insulin dose with CSII whereas a second study found no significant difference. In CSII analogue insulin was associated with lower glycated haemoglobin levels than soluble insulin. No economic evaluations comparing CSII with MDI were identified. The estimated additional cost of CSII compared to MDI varies from GBP1091 per annum to GBP1680 per annum, according to the make of the insulin pump and the estimated life of the device. These estimates include the costs for the insulin pump, the consumables associated with delivery of CSII, and an allowance for the initial education required when patients switch from MDI to CSII. The largest component of the annual cost for CSII is the cost of consumable items (e.g. infusion sets). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with optimised MDI, CSII results in a modest but worthwhile improvement in glycated haemoglobin in adults with Type 1 diabetes. It has not been possible to establish the longer term benefits of such a difference in glycated haemoglobin, although there is an expectation that it would be reflected in a reduction in long-term complications. More immediate primary benefits from CSII may be associated with an impact on the incidence of hypoglycaemic events and the dawn phenomenon, and greater flexibility of lifestyle. However, there is limited evidence on this, and information presented to offer context on quality-of-life is based on testimonies from those patients who have had a positive experience of CSII. The estimated cost to the NHS per year for CSII would be around GBP3.5 million in England and Wales if 1% of people with Type 1 diabetes used CSII, GBP10.5 million for 3%, and GBP17.5 million for 5%. Further research should focus on wider benefits of CSII, such as flexibility of lifestyle and quality of life, and on the psychological impact of wearing a device for 24 hours every day. Research into the use of CSII in children of different ages is also needed.

Dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The present report was commissioned as a supplement to an existing technology assessment report produced by the Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), which evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib in patients who are either resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib. OBJECTIVES: This report evaluates the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib within their licensed indications for the treatment of people with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) who are resistant to standard-dose imatinib. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to January 2011, including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were screened, key conferences were searched, and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: This report includes systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, an independent appraisal of information submitted by drug manufacturers to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), an independent appraisal of the PenTAG economic evaluation, and new economic analyses adapting the PenTAG economic model. Standard systematic procedures involving two reviewers to maintain impartiality and transparency, and to minimise bias, were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Four of these studies included new data published since the PenTAG report; all of these were in chronic-phase CML. No relevant studies on the clinical effectiveness of nilotinib were found. The clinical effectiveness studies on dasatinib [one arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT)] and high-dose imatinib (one arm of a RCT and three single-arm cohort studies) had major methodological limitations. These limitations precluded a comparison of the different arms within the RCT. Data from the studies are summarised in this report, but caution in interpretation is required. One economic evaluation was identified that compared dasatinib with high-dose imatinib in patients with chronic-phase CML who were CML resistant to standard-dose imatinib. Two industry submissions and the PenTAG economic evaluation were critiqued and differences in the assumptions and results were identified. The PenTAG economic model was adapted and new analyses conducted for the interventions dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib and the comparators interferon alfa, standard-dose imatinib, stem cell transplantation and hydroxycarbamide. The results suggest that the three interventions, dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib, have similar costs and cost-effectiveness compared with hydroxycarbamide, with a cost-effectiveness of around £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, it is not possible to derive firm conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of the three interventions owing to great uncertainty around data inputs. Uncertainty was explored using deterministic sensitivity analyses, threshold analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: The paucity of good-quality evidence should be considered when interpreting this report. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified very limited new information on clinical effectiveness of the interventions over that already shown in the PenTAG report. Limitations in the data exist; however, the results of single-arm studies suggest that the interventions can lead to improvements in haematological and cytogenetic responses in people with imatinib-resistant CML. The economic analyses do not highlight any one of the interventions as being the most cost-effective; however, the analysis results are highly uncertain owing to lack of agreement on appropriate assumptions. Recommendations for future research made by PenTAG, for a good-quality RCT comparing the three treatments remain.

Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) for people who are bilaterally deaf: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable sound processor that clips onto the fixture. BAHAs are suitable for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who cannot benefit fully from conventional hearing aids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BAHAs for people who are bilaterally deaf. DATA SOURCES: Nineteen electronic resources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (inception to November 2009). Additional studies were sought from reference lists and clinical experts. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Prospective studies of adults or children with bilateral hearing loss were eligible. Comparisons were BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing and ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs. Outcomes included hearing measures, validated measures of quality of life (QoL), adverse events and measures of cost-effectiveness. For the review of cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations were eligible. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (seven cohort pre-post studies and five cross-sectional 'audiological comparison' studies). No prospective studies comparing BAHAs with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies and meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in outcome measures and patient populations. There appeared to be some audiological benefits of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs; however, ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes. The limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identified by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefits of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. Prospective case series reported between 6.1% and 19.4% loss of implants. Most participants experienced no or minor skin reactions. A decision analytic model was developed. Costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs were estimated over a 10-year time horizon, applying discount rates of 3.5%. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £ 16,409 for children and £ 13,449 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between £ 55,642 and £ 119,367 for children and between £ 46,628 and £ 100,029 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for ≥ 8 or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values (£ 500,000-1,200,000 per QALY gained) associated with a high proportion of people using BCHA. More acceptable values (£ 15,000-37,000 per QALY gained) were associated with a low proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day (compared with BAHA). LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation presented in this report is severely limited by a lack of robust evidence on the outcome of hearing aid provision. This has lead to a more restricted analysis than was originally anticipated (limited to a comparison of BAHA and BCHA). In the absence of useable QoL data, the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on potential utility gains from hearing, that been inferred using a QoL instrument rather than measures reported by hearing aid users themselves. As a result the analysis is regarded as exploratory and the reported results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost-effective option where the benefits (in terms of hearing gain and probability of using of alternative aids) are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for ≥ 8 hours per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost-effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost-effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs. Further research into the non-audiological benefits of BAHAs, including QoL, is required.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. DATA SOURCES: Seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) > or = 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI > or = 40; BMI > or = 30 and < 40 with Type 2 diabetes at baseline; and BMI > or = 30 and < 35. Models were applied with assumptions on costs and comorbidity. RESULTS: A total of 5386 references were identified of which 26 were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions and 20 RCTs compared different surgical procedures. Bariatric surgery was a more effective intervention for weight loss than non-surgical options. In one large cohort study weight loss was still apparent 10 years after surgery, whereas patients receiving conventional treatment had gained weight. Some measures of QoL improved after surgery, but not others. After surgery statistically fewer people had metabolic syndrome and there was higher remission of Type 2 diabetes than in non-surgical groups. In one large cohort study the incidence of three out of six comorbidities assessed 10 years after surgery was significantly reduced compared with conventional therapy. Gastric bypass (GBP) was more effective for weight loss than vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) was more effective than AGB in one study. GBP and banded GBP led to similar weight loss and results for GBP versus LISG and VBG versus AGB were equivocal. All comparisons of open versus laparoscopic surgeries found similar weight losses in each group. Comorbidities after surgery improved in all groups, but with no significant differences between different surgical interventions. Adverse event reporting varied; mortality ranged from none to 10%. Adverse events from conventional therapy included intolerance to medication, acute cholecystitis and gastrointestinal problems. Major adverse events following surgery, some necessitating reoperation, included anastomosis leakage, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, band slippage and band erosion. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective in comparison to non-surgical treatment in the reviewed published estimates of cost-effectiveness. However, these estimates are likely to be unreliable and not generalisable because of methodological shortcomings and the modelling assumptions made. Therefore a new economic model was developed. Surgical management was more costly than non-surgical management in each of the three patient populations analysed, but gave improved outcomes. For morbid obesity, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (base case) ranged between 2000 pounds and 4000 pounds per QALY gained. They remained within the range regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective when assumptions for deterministic sensitivity analysis were changed. For BMI > or = 30 and 40, ICERs were 18,930 pounds at two years and 1397 pounds at 20 years, and for BMI > or = 30 and < 35, ICERs were 60,754 pounds at two years and 12,763 pounds at 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses produced ICERs which were generally within the range considered cost-effective, particularly at the long twenty year time horizons, although for the BMI 30-35 group some ICERs were above the acceptable range. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery appears to be a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for moderately to severely obese people compared with non-surgical interventions. Uncertainties remain and further research is required to provide detailed data on patient QoL; impact of surgeon experience on outcome; late complications leading to reoperation; duration of comorbidity remission; resource use. Good-quality RCTs will provide evidence on bariatric surgery for young people and for adults with class I or class II obesity. New research must report on the resolution and/or development of comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension so that the potential benefits of early intervention can be assessed.

Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies.

No consensus on the indications for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases exists. This systematic review has been undertaken to assess the published evidence for its efficacy and safety and to identify prognostic factors. Studies were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references and contacting investigators. The outcome measures were overall survival, disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost effectiveness, and a qualitative summary of the trends across all studies was produced. Only 30 of 529 independent studies met all the eligibility criteria for the review, and data on 30-day mortality and morbidity only were included from a further nine studies. The best available evidence came from prospective case series, but only two studies reported outcomes for all patients undergoing surgery. The remainder reported outcomes for selected groups of patients: those undergoing hepatic resection or those undergoing curative resection. Postoperative mortality rates were generally low (median 2.8%). The majority of studies described only serious postoperative morbidity, the most common being bile leak and associated perihepatic abscess. Approximately 30% of patients remained alive 5 years after resection and around two-thirds of these are disease free. The quality of the majority of published papers was poor and ascertaining the benefits of surgical resection of colorectal hepatic metastases is difficult in the absence of randomised trials. However, it is clear that there is group of patients with liver metastases who may become long-term disease-free survivors following hepatic resection. Such survival is rare in apparently comparable patients who do not have surgical treatment. Further work is needed to more accurately define this group of patients and to determine whether the addition of adjuvant treatments results in improved survival.

Topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: clinical and cost effectiveness of once-daily vs. more frequent use.

BACKGROUND: Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for atopic eczema, yet there is uncertainty over the frequency of their use in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of once-daily vs. more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature was undertaken, together with a cost-minimization analysis. RESULTS: The review identified a sparse literature, comprising one previous systematic review and 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. RCTs were focused on potent topical corticosteroids (eight RCTs), with no trials (RCTs/controlled clinical trials) identified on mild potency products. There was broad heterogeneity in trial methods, and therefore we considered outcomes according to: (i) at least a good response or 50% improvement, and (ii) eczema rated as cleared or controlled. Studies found little difference between once-daily and more frequent use of topical corticosteroids. The literature on moderately potent and potent corticosteroids offered no basis for favouring once-daily or more frequent use, although some significant differences favouring twice-daily treatment were identified. One RCT on very potent products favoured three times daily use on the basis of clinical response, but reported no difference in the numbers with at least a good response. Given the similar outcomes seen in clinical effectiveness a cost-minimization approach was adopted to consider cost effectiveness, in order to identify the least-cost option. However, cost-minimization analysis proved complex due to wide variations in product price, with the relative cost of product comparisons by frequency proving the most important factor in determining the least-cost alternative. CONCLUSIONS: This review has not identified any clear differences in outcomes between once-daily and more frequent application of topical corticosteroids. We would encourage prescribing clinicians to consider the once-daily use of topical corticosteroids when making treatment decisions for patients with atopic eczema. However, we find that the literature on clinical effectiveness is limited and a broader understanding of compliance and phobia associated with topical steroids is needed to inform on this issue.