Estimated health effects from domestic use of gaseous fuels for cooking and heating in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to household air pollution from polluting domestic fuel (solid fuel and kerosene) represents a substantial global public health burden and there is an urgent need for rapid transition to clean domestic fuels. Gas for cooking and heating might possibly affect child asthma, wheezing, and respiratory health. The aim of this review was to synthesise the evidence on the health effects of gaseous fuels to inform policies for scalable clean household energy. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarised the health effects from cooking or heating with gas compared with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) and clean energy (eg, electricity and solar energy). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Environment Complete, GreenFile, Google Scholar, Wanfang DATA, and CNKI for articles published between Dec 16, 2020, and Feb 6, 2021. Studies eligible for inclusion had to compare gas for cooking or heating with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) or clean energy (eg, electricity or solar energy) and present data for health outcomes in general populations. Studies that reported health outcomes that were exacerbations of existing underlying conditions were excluded. Several of our reviewers were involved in screening studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (including risk of bias) of included studies; 20% of studies were independently screened, extracted and quality assessed by another reviewer. Disagreements were reconciled through discussion with the wider review team. Included studies were appraised for quality using the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tools. Key health outcomes were grouped for meta-analysis and analysed using Cochrane's RevMan software. Primary outcomes were health effects (eg, acute lower respiratory infections) and secondary outcomes were health symptoms (eg, respiratory symptoms such as wheeze, cough, or breathlessness). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021227092. FINDINGS: 116 studies were included in the meta-analysis (two [2%] randomised controlled trials, 13 [11%] case-control studies, 23 [20%] cohort studies, and 78 [67%] cross-sectional studies), contributing 215 effect estimates for five grouped health outcomes. Compared with polluting fuels, use of gas significantly lowered the risk of pneumonia (OR 0·54, 95% CI 0·38-0·77; p=0·00080), wheeze (OR 0·42, 0·30-0·59; p<0·0001), cough (OR 0·44, 0·32-0·62; p<0·0001), breathlessness (OR 0·40, 0·21-0·76; p=0·0052), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 0·37, 0·23-0·60; p<0·0001), bronchitis (OR 0·60, 0·43-0·82; p=0·0015), pulmonary function deficit (OR 0·27, 0·17-0·44; p<0·0001), severe respiratory illness or death (OR 0·27, 0·11-0·63; p=0·0024), preterm birth (OR 0·66, 0·45-0·97; p=0·033), and low birth weight (OR 0·70, 0·53-0·93; p=0·015). Non-statistically significant effects were observed for asthma in children (OR 1·04, 0·70-1·55; p=0·84), asthma in adults (OR 0·65, 0·43-1·00; p=0·052), and small for gestational age (OR 1·04, 0·89-1·21; p=0·62). Compared with electricity, use of gas significantly increased risk of pneumonia (OR 1·26, 1·03-1·53; p=0·025) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1·15, 1·06-1·25; p=0·0011), although smaller non-significant effects were observed for higher-quality studies. In addition, a small increased risk of asthma in children was not significant (OR 1·09, 0·99-1·19; p=0·071) and no significant associations were found for adult asthma, wheeze, cough, and breathlessness (p>0·05). A significant decreased risk of bronchitis was observed (OR 0·87, 0·81-0·93; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Switching from polluting fuels to gaseous household fuels could lower health risk and associated morbidity and mortality in resource-poor countries where reliance on polluting fuels is greatest. Although gas fuel use was associated with a slightly higher risk for some health outcomes compared with electricity, gas is an important transitional option for health in countries where access to reliable electricity supply for cooking or heating is not feasible in the near term. FUNDING: WHO.

Onasemnogene Abeparvovec for Treating Pre-symptomatic Spinal Muscular Atrophy: An External Assessment Group Perspective of the Partial Review of NICE Highly Specialised Technology Evaluation 15.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highly specialised technology (HST) evaluation programme, Novartis submitted evidence to support the use of onasemnogene abeparvovec as a treatment option for patients with pre-symptomatic 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with a bi-allelic mutation in the survival of motor neuron (SMN) 1 gene and up to three copies of the SMN2 gene. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the External Assessment Group (EAG). This article summarises the EAG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides an overview of the NICE Evaluation Committee's final decision, published in April 2023. The primary source of evidence for this evaluation was the SPR1NT trial, a single-arm trial including 29 babies. The EAG and committee considered that the SPR1NT trial results suggested that onasemnogene abeparvovec is effective in treating pre-symptomatic SMA; however, long-term efficacy data were unavailable and efficacy in babies aged over 6 weeks remained uncertain. Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted by the company and the EAG (using a discounted price for onasemnogene abeparvovec) explored various assumptions; all analyses generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) that were less than £100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The committee recommended onasemnogene abeparvovec as an option for treating pre-symptomatic 5q SMA with a bi-allelic mutation in the SMN1 gene and up to three copies of the SMN2 gene in babies aged ≤ 12 months only if the company provides it according to the commercial arrangement (i.e. simple discount patient access scheme).

Pegcetacoplan for Treating Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Apellis Pharmaceuticals/Sobi to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab and pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) in adults whose anaemia is uncontrolled after treatment with a C5 inhibitor. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The company pursued a low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) Fast Track Appraisal (FTA). This was a form of STA processed in a shorter time frame and designed for technologies with company base-case ICER < £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and most plausible ICER < £20,000 per QALY gained. This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission, and the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The company presented clinical evidence from the PEGASUS trial that assessed the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab. At Week 16, patients in the pegcetacoplan arm had statistically significantly greater change from baseline in haemoglobin levels and a higher rate of transfusion avoidance than patients in the eculizumab arm. Using the PEGASUS trial and Study 302 data (a non-inferiority trial that assessed ravulizumab versus eculizumab), the company conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to indirectly estimate the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab. The company identified key differences between trial designs and populations that could not be adjusted for using anchored MAIC methods. The company and ERG agreed that the anchored MAIC results were not robust and should not inform decision making. In the absence of robust indirect estimates, the company assumed that ravulizumab had equivalent efficacy to eculizumab in the PEGASUS trial population. Results from the company base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treatment with pegcetacoplan dominated eculizumab and ravulizumab. The ERG considered that the long-term effectiveness of pegcetacoplan was uncertain and ran a scenario assuming that after 1 year the efficacy of pegcetacoplan would be the same as eculizumab; treatment with pegcetacoplan continued to dominate eculizumab and ravulizumab. The AC noted that treatment with pegcetacoplan had lower total costs than treatment with eculizumab or ravulizumab because it is self-administered and reduces the need for blood transfusions. If the assumption that ravulizumab has equivalent efficacy to eculizumab does not hold, then this will affect the estimate of the cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab; however, the AC was satisfied that the assumption was reasonable. The AC recommended pegcetacoplan as an option for the treatment of PNH in adults who have uncontrolled anaemia despite treatment with a stable dose of a C5 inhibitor for ≥ 3 months. Pegcetacoplan was the first technology recommended by NICE via the low ICER FTA process.

Trastuzumab Deruxtecan for Treating HER2-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer After Two or More Anti-HER2 Therapies: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to improve health and social care in England and Wales. NICE invited Daiichi Sankyo to submit evidence for the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for treating human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer (UBC/MBC) after two or more anti-HER2 therapies, in accordance with NICE's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, part of the University of Liverpool, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides an overview of the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision made in May 2021. Results from the company's base-case fully incremental analysis showed that, compared with T-DXd, eribulin and vinorelbine were dominated and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus capecitabine was £47,230. The ERG scenario analyses generated a range of ICERs, with the highest being a scenario relating to a comparison of T-DXd versus capecitabine (£78,142 per QALY gained). The ERG considered that due to a lack of appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence, the relative effectiveness of T-DXd versus any comparator treatment could not be determined with any degree of certainty. The NICE AC agreed that the modelling of overall survival was highly uncertain and concluded that treatment with T-DXd could not be recommended for routine use within the National Health Service (NHS). T-DXd was, however, recommended for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund, provided Managed Access Agreement conditions were followed.

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a neurological disorder affecting both children and adults. Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical cell electrical activity in the brain. In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact on long-term outcomes, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children and adolescents with epilepsy and their families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 14 January 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 January 2020), PsycINFO (1887 to 14 January 2020), CINAHL Plus (1937 to 14 January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We also contacted experts in the field seeking information on unpublished and ongoing studies and checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials recruiting children and adolescents with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 1. Seizure frequency and severity; 2. Appropriateness and volume of medication prescribed (including evidence of drug toxicity); 3. Participants' reported knowledge of information and advice received from professionals; 4. Participants' reports of health and quality of life; 5. Objective measures of general health status; 6. Objective measures of social or psychological functioning (including the number of days spent on sick leave/absence from school or work, and employment status); and 7. Costs of care or treatment. The results of the data extraction and quality assessment for each study were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. All summary statistics were extracted for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies of eight interventions in the review, reporting on seven distinct self-management programmes for educating or counselling children with epilepsy and their parents, and one new model of care. Based largely on self-reported outcomes, each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy; however, all of the included studies had methodological flaws. No single programme was evaluated with different study samples, and in no instance was the same outcome measured and reported in the same way across studies, precluding any possible meta-analysis, even if the interventions were considered sufficiently similar to include in meta-analysis.  We chose the outcomes for which data might be important for decisions about the interventions as per guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We found moderate certainty evidence that one of the educational interventions reduced seizure frequency. There was low certainty evidence that two other educational interventions reduced seizure severity, seizure control, and seizure cure rates. The evidence for all other outcomes (drug adherence, knowledge, self-efficacy and self-perception of epilepsy on quality of life) was mixed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Whilst each of the programmes evaluated in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impact was extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had methodological problems. There is currently insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials using validated measures and considering clinical meaningfulness as well as statistical significance of results is required.

A systematic review of health state utility values for thyroid cancer.

PURPOSE: Health state utility values are commonly used to inform economic evaluations and determine the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the utility values available to represent the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to April 2019 for studies which included assessment of HRQoL for patients with thyroid cancer. Utility estimates derived from multiple sources (EuroQol questionnaire 5-dimension (EQ-5D), time trade-off [TTO] and standard gamble [SG] methods) were extracted. In addition, utility estimates were generated by mapping from SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 to the EQ-5D-3L UK value set using published mapping algorithms. RESULTS: Searches identified 33 eligible studies. Twenty-six studies reported HRQoL for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and seven studies for patients with general thyroid cancer. We identified studies which used different methods and tools to quantify the HRQoL in patients with thyroid cancer, such as the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, EORTC QLQ-30 and SG and TTO techniques to estimate utility values. Utility estimates range from 0.205 (patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer) to utility values approximate to the average UK population (following successful thyroidectomy surgery and radioiodine treatment). Utility estimates for different health states, across thyroid cancer sub-types and interventions are presented. CONCLUSION: A catalogue of utility values is provided for use when carrying out economic modelling of thyroid cancer; by including mapped values, this approach broadens the scope of health states that can be considered within cost-effectiveness modelling.

Brentuximab Vedotin for Treating Relapsed or Refractory CD30-Positive Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Takeda UK Ltd to submit clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence for brentuximab vedotin (BV) for treating relapsed or refractory CD30-positive (CD30+) cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's submission for BV and the appraisal committee (AC) decision. The principal clinical evidence was derived from a subgroup of patients with advanced-stage CD30+ mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (pcALCL) in the phase III ALCANZA randomised controlled trial (RCT). This trial compared BV versus physician's choice (PC) of methotrexate or bexarotene. Evidence from three observational studies was also presented, which included patients with other CTCL subtypes. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical evidence were the lack of RCT evidence for CTCL subtypes other than MF or pcALCL, lack of robust overall survival data (data were immature and confounded by subsequent treatment and treatment crossover on disease progression) and lack of conclusive results from analyses of health-related quality-of-life data. The ERG noted that many areas of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis were related to the clinical data, arising from the rarity of the condition and its subtypes and the complexity of the treatment pathway. The ERG highlighted that the inclusion of allogeneic stem-cell transplant (alloSCT) as an option in the treatment pathway was based on weak evidence and generated more uncertainty in a disease area that, because of its rarity and diversity, was already highly uncertain. The ERG also lacked confidence in the company's modelling of the post-progression pathway and was concerned that it may not produce reliable results. Results from the company's base-case comparison (including a simple discount patient access scheme [PAS] for BV) showed that treatment with BV dominated PC. The ERG's revisions and scenario analyses highlighted the high level of uncertainty around the company base-case cost-effectiveness results, ranging from BV dominating PC to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained of £494,981. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to include alloSCT in the treatment pathway even though data were limited. The AC recommended BV as an option for treating CD30+ CTCL after at least one systemic therapy in adults if they have MF, stage IIB or higher pcALCL or Sézary syndrome and if the company provides BV according to the commercial arrangement (i.e. simple discount PAS).

Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. RESULTS: Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Differentiated thyroid cancer is a common type of thyroid cancer. For many patients, radioactive iodine is an effective treatment; however, for some patients, the treatment stops working or becomes unsafe. Two new drugs, lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany), may be new treatment options. WHAT DID WE DO?: We reviewed the clinical evidence of lenvatinib and sorafenib. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Compared with no treatment, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib may increase the time that people live with thyroid cancer before their disease gets worse; however, both drugs are expensive and may have unpleasant side effects. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: At their published (undiscounted) prices, lenvatinib or sorafenib may not be considered to provide good value for money to the NHS.

A systematic review of lenvatinib and sorafenib for treating progressive, locally advanced or metastatic, differentiated thyroid cancer after treatment with radioactive iodine.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with radioactive iodine is effective for many patients with progressive, locally advanced or metastatic, differentiated thyroid cancer. However, some patients become refractory to treatment. These types of patients are considered to have radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1999 through January 2017. Reference lists of included studies and ongoing trial registries were also searched. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective observational studies, and systematic reviews/indirect comparisons were eligible for inclusion. In the absence of direct clinical trial evidence comparing lenvatinib versus sorafenib, we assessed the feasibility of conducting an indirect comparison to obtain estimates of the relative efficacy and safety of these two treatments. RESULTS: Of 2364 citations, in total, 93 papers reporting on 2 RCTs (primary evidence), 9 observational studies and 13 evidence reviews (supporting evidence) were identified. Compared to placebo, RCT evidence demonstrated improvements with lenvatinib or sorafenib in median progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response rate (ORR). Overall survival (OS) was confounded by high treatment crossover (≥75%) in both trials. Adverse events (AEs) were more common with lenvatinib or sorafenib than with placebo but the most common AEs associated with each drug differed. Primarily due to differences in the survival risk profiles of patients in the placebo arms of the RCTs, we considered it inappropriate to indirectly compare the effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib. ORR and AE findings for lenvatinib and sorafenib from the supporting evidence were broadly in line with RCT evidence. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib and sorafenib are more efficacious than placebo (a proxy for best supportive care) for treating RR-DTC. Uncertainty surrounds the extent of the impact on OS and HRQoL. Lenvatinib could not reliably be compared with sorafenib. Choice of treatment is therefore likely to depend on an individual patient's circumstances.

Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as a mode of respiratory support. We updated a systematic review and meta-analyses examining the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with standard treatments for preterm infants. The primary outcome was the need for reintubation for preterm infants following mechanical ventilation (post-extubation analysis) or need for intubation for preterm infants not previously intubated (analysis of primary respiratory support). METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HHHFNC versus standard treatments. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: The post-extubation analysis included ten RCTs (n = 1,201), and the analysis of primary respiratory support included ten RCTs (n = 1,676). There were no statistically significant differences for outcomes measuring efficacy, including the primary outcome. There were statistically significant differences favoring HHHFNC versus nasal cannula positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for air leak (post-extubation, risk ratio [RR] 0.29, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.76, I2 = 0) and nasal trauma (post-extubation: 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.27 to 0.46, I2 = 5 percent; primary respiratory support: RR 0.52, 95 percent CI 0.37 to 0.74; I2 = 27 percent). Studies, particularly those of primary respiratory support, included very few preterm infants with gestational age (GA) <28 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: HHHFNC may offer an efficacious and safe alternative to NCPAP for some infants but evidence is lacking for preterm infants with GA ≤28 weeks.

Cenegermin for Treating Neurotrophic Keratitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cenegermin (OXERVATE®, Dompé) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cenegermin for neurotrophic keratitis (NK). The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) final decision. Clinical-effectiveness evidence from two phase II randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cenegermin found cenegermin to improve corneal healing after 8 weeks compared with vehicle, considered a proxy for artificial tears. Longer-term data and comparisons with other relevant comparators were insufficient to draw conclusions. The company developed a de novo economic model that found cenegermin to be dominant when compared with artificial tears, except in one of seven scenarios. However, the ERG considered that the model had a major structural flaw in that it failed to allow patients to enter a 'sustained healing' state from 'standard of care (SoC) non-healing' and 'SoC deteriorating' states, or to move into an 'SoC deteriorating' state from an 'SoC non-healing' state. Following the first AC meeting, the company submitted a revised model with a revised model structure that removed the 'SoC deteriorating' state and introduced an 'SoC healed' state to sit alongside the existing 'sustained healing' and 'SoC non-healing' states from the original model. However, the ERG continued to express concerns, which included (1) extrapolation of the treatment effect of cenegermin over a patient's lifetime; (2) the assumption that patients had two specialist visits a month; (3) the assumption that artificial tears, autologous serum eye drops and contact lenses continued for a lifetime after healing; (4) the simplified modelling of costs and utilities; and (5) the underlying uncertainty in the utility values. The ERG therefore considered the company's model could not produce a robust incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did however present an alternative ICER by amending the use and cost of autologous serum eye drops, contact lenses and artificial tears in the 'healed' and 'non-healed' states. Applying these changes produced an ICER of £302,717 per QALY gained. Because of uncertainties with the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence, the AC concluded that cenegermin cannot be recommended within its marketing authorisation for NK.

Eribulin for Treating Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer After One Chemotherapy Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Eribulin is a recommended treatment option for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LABC/MBC) in adults whose disease has progressed after at least two chemotherapy regimens. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eribulin (Halaven®; Eisai Ltd) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of eribulin for treating LABC/MBC after one chemotherapy regimen in accordance with the institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, Evidence Review Group (ERG) review and resulting NICE guidance (TA515), issued 28 March 2018. Clinical evidence for eribulin versus capecitabine in LABC/MBC was derived from a subgroup of 392 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-negative disease which had progressed after only one prior chemotherapy regimen for LABC/MBC in the phase III, randomised, controlled Study 301 (n = 1102). Overall survival (OS) but not progression-free survival (PFS) was improved for patients treated with eribulin versus capecitabine in this subgroup. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for eribulin, the company developed a de novo economic model. In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for eribulin versus capecitabine was £36,244 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. However, the ERG identified several problematic issues relating to modelling OS and PFS, drug costing and utility values, and made ten revisions to the company model. The overall impact of all ten revisions was to increase the ICER per QALY gained by £46,499. The Appraisal Committee (AC) accepted all changes made by the ERG except for the change to utility values; the AC considered that the value should be mid-way between the company's and the ERG's preferred values. A modified model was submitted by the company that included this utility value, but maintained some elements of the base case that the AC had been critical of (differential PFS between treatment arms and application of treatment cap). The new model also included a 'blended' comparator (capecitabine and vinorelbine). The AC noted there was no evidence to support a 'blended' comparator, differential PFS between treatment arms or a treatment cap. The AC therefore concluded that the most plausible ICER was likely to be £69,843 per QALY gained (derived from an ERG sensitivity analysis using the AC's preferred utility value, no differential PFS and no treatment cap). Therefore, eribulin was not recommended for treating LABC/MBC in adults who have had only one chemotherapy regimen.

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children and parents; teenagers and parents; or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.

Pegylated Liposomal Irinotecan Hydrochloride Trihydrate for Treating Pancreatic Cancer After Gemcitabine: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Shire Pharmaceuticals) of pegylated liposomal irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate (liposomal irinotecan) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for its use in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folic acid/leucovorin (LV) for treating patients with pancreatic cancer following prior treatment with gemcitabine as part of the institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA440), issued on 26 April 2017. Clinical evidence for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV was derived from 236 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the multinational, open-label, randomised controlled NAPOLI-1 trial. Results from analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival showed statistically significant improvements for patients treated with liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV compared with those treated with 5-FU/LV. However, 5-FU/LV alone is rarely used in National Health Service clinical practice for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine. The company, ERG and Appraisal Committee (AC) all agreed that oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV is the most commonly used treatment. Oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was compared with 5-FU/LV in two trials identified by the company. However, the company and the ERG both considered attempts to compare the efficacy of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV to be methodologically flawed; not only was there heterogeneity between trials and their populations but also the proportional hazards assumption required to conduct a robust indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was violated. Nonetheless, data derived from an ITC were used to inform the company's economic model. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV, the company reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £54,412 for the comparison with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. The ERG considered that the company's base-case cost-effectiveness results for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were underestimates and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Following implementation of a number of model amendments, the ERG's modified exploratory ICER for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was £106,898 per QALY gained. The AC accepted the majority of the ERG's amendments to the model, and also highlighted that the total QALYs for oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were lower than for 5-FU/LV in the company's model, which the AC considered to be clinically implausible. The AC therefore considered results from exploratory analyses, undertaken by the ERG, which included altering the QALY difference between liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV by ± 10%. These analyses resulted in ICERs for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV of between £201,019 per QALY gained to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV being dominated by oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. Therefore, despite uncertainty around the clinical-effectiveness evidence and cost-effectiveness results, the AC was confident that the ICER was in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The final guidance issued by NICE is that liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV is not recommended within its marketing authorisation for treating metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in adults whose disease has progressed after gemcitabine-based therapy.

An assessment of the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities: a systematic literature review.

This review assessed evidence of disparities in benefits of pharmacogenomics related to 'model performance' in subgroups of patients and studies which reported impact on health inequalities. 'Model performance' refers to the ability of algorithms including clinical, environmental and genetic information to guide treatment. A total of 4978 abstracts were screened by one reviewer and 30% (1494) were double screened by a second independent reviewer, after which data extraction was performed. Additional forward and backward citation searching of reference lists was conducted. Investigators independently double rated study quality and applicability of included studies. Only five individual studies were identified which met our inclusion criteria, but were contradictory in their conclusions. While three studies of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin reported that ethnic disparities in healthcare may widen, two other studies (one reporting on warfarin and reporting on clopidogrel) suggested that disparities in healthcare may reduce. There is a paucity of studies which evaluates the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities. Further work is required not only to evaluate health disparities between ethnic groups and countries but also within ethnic groups in the same country and solutions need to be identified to overcome these disparities.

Talimogene Laherparepvec for Treating Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Amgen) of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's submission of T-VEC, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA410), issued in September 2016. T-VEC is an oncolytic virus therapy granted a marketing authorisation by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with unresectable melanoma that is regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a) with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. Clinical evidence for T-VEC versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was derived from the multinational, open-label randomised controlled OPTiM trial [Oncovex (GM-CSF) Pivotal Trial in Melanoma]. In accordance with T-VEC's marketing authorisation, the company's submission focused primarily on 249 patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease who constituted 57% of the overall trial population (T-VEC, n = 163 and GM-CSF, n = 86). Results from analyses of durable response rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure and overall survival all showed marked and statistically significant improvements for patients treated with T-VEC compared with those treated with GM-CSF. However, GM-CSF is not used to treat melanoma in clinical practice. It was not possible to compare treatment with T-VEC with an appropriate comparator using conventionally accepted methods due to the absence of comparative head-to-head data or trials with sufficient common comparators. Therefore, the company compared T-VEC with ipilimumab using what it described as modified Korn and two-step Korn methods. Results from these analyses suggested that treatment with T-VEC was at least as effective as treatment with ipilimumab. Using the discounted patient access scheme (PAS) price for T-VEC and list price for ipilimumab, the company reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the comparison of treatment with T-VEC versus ipilimumab, the ICER per QALY gained was -£16,367 using the modified Korn method and -£60,271 using the two-step Korn method. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) agreed with the ERG that the company's methods for estimating clinical effectiveness of T-VEC versus ipilimumab were flawed and therefore produced unreliable results for modelling progression in stage IIIB to stage IVM1a melanoma. The AC concluded that the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment with T-VEC compared with ipilimumab is unknown in patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease. However, the AC considered that T-VEC may be a reasonable option for treating patients who are unsuitable for treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies (such as ipilimumab). T-VEC was therefore recommended by NICE as a treatment option for adults with unresectable, regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB to stage IVM1a) melanoma that has not spread to bone, brain, lung or other internal organs, only if treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies is not suitable and the company provides T-VEC at the agreed discounted PAS price.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. RESULTS: Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. LIMITATIONS: There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

Care delivery and self management strategies for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy care for children has been criticised for its lack of impact. Various service models and strategies have been developed in response to perceived inadequacies in care provision for children and their families. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of any specialised or dedicated intervention for the care of children with epilepsy and their families to the effectiveness of usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013,Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1988 to week 25, 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to 11 December 2013) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 11 December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each review author independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included five interventions reported in seven study reports (of which only four studies of three interventions were designed as RCTs) in this review. They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children, children and parents, teenagers and parents, or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but each study had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed) and no single programme was independently evaluated by more than one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes. No study appeared to have demonstrated any detrimental effects but the evidence in favour of any single programme was insufficient to make it possible to recommend one programme rather than another. More studies, carried out by independent research teams, are needed.